By Nick Cahill, Courthouse News
SACRAMENTO – A prominent law enforcement lobbying group which represents all of California’s elected county sheriffs is putting its weight behind the Trump administration’s assault on the state’s sanctuary laws.
In a proposed friend-of-the-court briefing filed Friday, the National Sheriffs’ Association said a judge should rule in favor of the federal government and overturn the state immigration laws it claims endanger officers and public safety.
“Laws like Senate Bill 54 and Assembly Bill 450 are not only flagrantly unconstitutional but extremely dangerous to both the safety of the American people and the integrity of our federal republic,” said Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Immigration Reform Law Institute in a statement.
The law institute filed friend-of-the-court briefs on behalf of the sheriffs, an immigration reform group and Southern California cities Escondido, Mission Viejo and Yorba Linda. The briefs filed in support of U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ motion for preliminary injunction claim the laws force officers and municipalities to ignore federal laws and “harbor” undocumented immigrants.
“The challenged provisions of (the laws) not only are pre-empted because they stand as obstacles to congressional purposes behind federal immigration law, but that the challenged provisions violate the Supremacy Clause directly, by mandating that local officials attempt to block federal officers from performing their duty,” the filing states.
In a lawsuit experts say is destined to eventually reach the Supreme Court, Sessions is targeting three recently enacted California immigration bills signed by Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown. The lawsuit filed in Sacramento federal court says the bills violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and hamper federal immigration actions.
The Trump administration is targeting the signature piece of a sweeping 2017 package of bills that increased protections for undocumented immigrants. Known as the Sanctuary State law, SB 54 prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating with immigration agents without a court order and creates safe zones around schools, courts and hospitals.
The suit also challenges AB 450 which bars California employers from releasing the immigration status of their employees without a court order and a bill requiring state inspections of federal detention facilities.
U.S. District Judge John Mendez has already allowed more than a dozen Republican-led states to file supporting briefs. He has also denied California’s request to transfer the case to San Francisco, the venue where it has already sued the federal government 29 times since 2017.
A hearing on the federal government’s motion for preliminary injunction is set for June 20 in Sacramento. The court will allow California’s lawyers to depose acting U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement director Thomas Homan.
The California State Sheriffs’ Association came out against SB 54 during the legislative process while the state police chiefs association was neutral.
Like this:
Like Loading...
Related
Tweet This
Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
RSS
REAL NAMES ONLY: All posters must use their real individual or business name. This applies equally to Twitter account holders who use a nickname.
18 Comments
Of course they are
Because living in a third world lawless slum is unacceptable to rational people. Thank you Democrats.
I’m a moderate, but in today’s definition I’m a liberal. Ultra any side is not a good thing. I’m not for sanctuary laws, come here and abide by the law of the land.
Jackie MacNair youre not liberal
I too consider myself a moderate. I would really love to see a new political party created called the Common Sense Party. My Republican friends and family call me a liberal but my liberal friends and family are horrified my some of my views. I am now registered Independent but this seems to have led to more unwanted political phone surveys, election junk mail and even people showing up at my door.
I agree William
Excellent!
“Federal republic”. Its purely supporting federalism. As a republic, the will of californians would be honored by enforcement in support of localization. Dont sugar-coat your nationalist BS. If you wanted to honor the integrity of the republic, leave for a state whos culture you more willingly wish to honor.
As federalists you must still adhere to the 10th and 11th amendment of the US constitution. Good luck being a bunch of retards.
Curtis Pritchett, you lost any legitimacy to your argument, when you used name calling using a particularly offensive and insensitive word. States rights give way to national security and the right of the federal government to protect the country’s borders. Unfortunately, California is one of the main gateways for illegal immigration, gangs, drugs and weapons coming into the United States. If sanctuary was simply about protecting law abiding undocumented foreigners who come forward to report crime and act as witnesses, that would still have my support. But when sanctuary extends to protecting and warning known criminals (beyond illegal entry) then it has gone too far and all, both legal and illegal residents are put at risk.
For starters, it’s a Federal Border…(let your mind wander). You’re little laugh of a statement shows you grasp zero about the ISSUE. Here’s a hint ; Can Texas choose to ignore Federal EPA standards to promote their States oil drilling businesses?
Good! It certainly makes their job harder!!! Also the government would tie law enforcement’s hands, giving the illegal special privileges and rights.
Curtis Pritchett is right, why give us states right if we can’t use it.
If you’re Truly interested, study the Constitution.
William Reel if you want to prove a point, don’t tell me what to do, that’s just lazy. It shows me you don’t know how to have a conversation.
Sounds like becerra and moonbeam F’d up
It’s time to stand up against the Sanctuary Cities law that Jerry Brown, and Becerra have concocted. Also, we must fight Richard Pan’s bill. Pan is just as dangerous to CA citizens as all Democrats in CA leadership currently: https://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2018/04/09/california-bill-would-shut-down-free-speech/
California is lawless? You’re a joke.
I dont know how the local law enforcement can justify NOT working with a different jurisdiction. Especially when the quantity of federal or border agents is only a fraction of the local agencies.
The feds must pay for the decades of underfunding border protection.