Neon Nettle
© 2019 Neon Nettle

Subscribe to our mailing list

Advertise Contact About Us Our Writers T&C's Privacy Support Us © 2019 Neon Nettle All Rights Reserved.

Trump Challenges California’s Sanctuary Law In The Supreme Court

President moves to quash State's migrant sanctuary law

 on 29th October 2019 @ 2.00pm
the california values act  otherwise known as sb 54  is currently being disputed © press
The California Values Act, otherwise known as SB 54, is currently being disputed

The Trump administration has requested that the Supreme Court quash California’s migrant sanctuary law, which prevents state and local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities.

The California Values Act, otherwise known as SB 54, is currently being disputed as conservatives argue for strong federal power against California liberals making a states-rights defense.

The government’s petition to the high court reads as follows:

“The federal government has plenary and exclusive power over immigration, naturalization, and deportation."

“The supremacy of the national power in this area is made clear by the Constitution, was pointed out by the authors of The Federalist in 1787, and has been given continuous recognition by this Court.”

In April, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law.

in fiscal year 2019  u s  immigration and customs enforcement  ice  issued about 58 000 immigration detainers in california © press
In fiscal year 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued about 58,000 immigration detainers in California.

Three provisions of SB 54 are currently at stake in the case.

The law prevents s state officials from sharing information with agents about a person’s release from custody, inclduing personal information like physical descriptions or employment history.

It also includes transferring individuals to immigration authorities without a court warrant.

The law doesn't apply to certain violent criminals.

In fiscal year 2019, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) issued about 58,000 immigration detainers in California.

Federal agents must stake out-state jails and anticipate the release of non-citizens, then make the arrests due to California’s non-cooperation.

Some migrants avoid federal custody altogether.

The government’s petition continues:

“The practical consequences of California’s obstruction are not theoretical; as a result of SB 54, criminal aliens have evaded the detention and removal that Congress prescribed, and have instead returned to the civilian population, where they are disproportionately likely to commit additional crimes."

The Trump administration is now depending on a liberal Supreme Court decision to make its case, in keeping with the ideological role-reversals that permeate the dispute.

earlier this month  a police officer in a sanctuary county was suspended for allegedly cooperating with ice agents © press
Earlier this month, a police officer in a sanctuary county was suspended for allegedly cooperating with ICE agents

According to The Daily Caller: In Arizona v. U.S., a left-leaning five-justice majority invalidated much of an Arizona law that involved state officials with immigration enforcement. Arizona said its law merely supplemented federal immigration rules.

The high court struck much of it down anyway, saying federal immigration rules take precedence over — or “preempt” — state ones.

If the states can’t augment immigration enforcement, it follows that they can’t interfere with it either, the administration said.

“The conflict is all the more evident here because SB 54 does not purport to pursue the same aim as federal law, but instead is concededly aimed at obstructing federal immigration enforcement,” the government’s petition reads.

“It cannot be that conflict preemption bars a state from adopting its own policies … to enhance federal immigration enforcement, yet permits a state … to obstruct federal enforcement,” the filing adds.

California’s law was upheld by a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit, using a state's rights doctrine.

The federal government can’t enlist the states to enforce federal policies under the 10th Amendment anti-commandeering rule,

That means the administration can’t require California’s cooperation with immigration enforcement, according to the panel.

Judge Milan Smith wrote for the unanimous panel:

“SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts."

“However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anti-commandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”

Earlier this month, a police officer in a sanctuary county was suspended for allegedly cooperating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by handing a suspected illegal alien to agents.

The unnamed Virginia cop is facing disciplinary proceedings after allegedly turning over a suspected undocumented immigrant to federal immigration authorities following a traffic accident last month.

Officials with the sanctuary county Fairfax County Police Department revealed in a Tuesday statement that the incident occurred on September 21 when an officer was dispatched to the scene of a car accident.

[RELATED] California Governor Pardons 3 Convicted Immigrants To Stop Them Being Deported

Share this post:

Facebook is heavily censoring information from independent sources.

To bypass internet censorship, connect with us directly by enabling our notifications (using the red subscription bell in the bottom right corner) or by subscribing to our free daily newsletter.

Get the latest news delivered straight to your inbox for free every day by signing up below.

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Subscribe to our mailing list

Whatfinger banner

Follow Neon Nettle


PREV
BOOKMARK US
NEXT