REPORT TO COUNCIL
SUBJECT
Title
Action on Adoption of a Resolution in Support of the State of California in United States of America v. State of California
Report
BACKGROUND
On March 6, 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice sued the State of California in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California over three state laws: Assembly Bill 450 (Immigrant Worker Protection Act), Assembly Bill 103 (Amendment to the Budget Act of 2017), and Senate Bill 54 (California Values Act). AB 103 mandates that all county, local, and private facilities holding noncitizens for civil immigration proceedings provide access to the California Attorney General (AG) such that the AG could review the conditions of confinement, the standard of care and due process provided, and the circumstances around the detainees’ apprehension and transfer to the facility. AB 450 prohibits private employers from consenting to warrantless searches by ICE agents, from providing ICE with access to employees’ personnel records without a subpoena or warrant, and requires employers to give employees 72 hours advanced notice of such an inspection. SB 54 prohibits local law enforcement from inquiring into a person’s immigration status, holding an individual on the basis of an ICE detainer, providing to immigration authorities non-public information regarding an inmate’s or detainee’s release date, providing immigration authorities any personal information about an individual, and transferring an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination. All three laws have been in effect since January 2018, and the federal lawsuit seeks an injunction to block their application.
The federal government filed a motion for preliminary injunction, which was decided in early July. The District Court enjoined enforcement of AB 450, preliminarily determining that the restriction on employer consent to warrantless searches was unconstitutional. However, the District Court denied the USA’s request for injunction as to AB 103’s provisions mandating access to immigration detention facilities, and SB 54’s directive that state and local agencies refuse to cooperate with ICE. The federal government filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, which is currently pending.
Additionally, and to provide context for this report, in 2017 the Council approved joinder in a tangentially related amicus brief in support of the County of Santa Clara and City and County of San Francisco’s challenge to Executive Order 13768 “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” which directed withholding of federal grants to co-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The Counties were successful at both the District Court and Ninth Circuit levels. The time period for the US DOJ to file an appeal to the United States Supreme Court has not yet run out; the City Attorney’s Office expects the federal government to request review by the Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION
The U.S. Justice Department argues in its appeal that the three state laws being challenged (1) violate the theory of intergovernmental immunity, which forbids a state from regulating the federal government directly and from discriminating against those within the state who deal with the federal government, and (2) violate the theory of federal preemption in that the three state laws have the purpose and effect of imposing an obstacle to the federal government’s efforts to enforce immigration laws and thereby harm public safety.
The State of California argues that (1) the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) does not preempt the challenged state laws, and (2) there is no clearly articulated Congressional purpose stating that the INA was meant to deprive states of their power to regulate the use of their own law enforcement resources, and (3) agreement with the US’s position in this case would violate the principle that the federal government may not commandeer states or their officers to implement a federal program, and (4) States have concurrent jurisdiction with the federal government to apply general state requirements on immigration detention facilities located within their boundaries, and (5) there is no disparate impact upon the federal government or upon those dealing with the federal government, and (6) enjoining California’s laws would be inequitable and contrary to the public interest.
Many California cities and counties have signed on to file an amicus (“friend of the court”) brief in support of the State of California’s position in the case. The brief will be filed on or before November 12th. The arguments raised in the amicus brief are anticipated to include the following:
• Sanctuary policies actually promote public safety, health and welfare of residents
• State and local governments are in the best position to determine the best interests of their residents
• Federal government’s actions violate local sovereignty by forcing local employees to participate in federal immigration enforcement
The City of Santa Clara was requested to participate in the amicus filed in support of the State’s position in the case. However, due to the Council meetings as scheduled, this matter could not be brought before Council for approval of joining the amicus prior to the filing deadline. Therefore, the City will not be participating as a named member of the amicus group, as it did in the County v. Trump cases mentioned above. But, rather than participating in the amicus, the City may still state its support for the State in the case by adopting a resolution of support.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the City other than staff time.
COORDINATION
This report has been coordinated with City Manager’s Office.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Adopt a resolution in support of the State of California in the United States v. California Ninth Circuit appeal.
2. Take no action.
PUBLIC CONTACT
Public contact was made by posting the Council agenda on the City’s official-notice bulletin board outside City Hall Council Chambers. A complete agenda packet is available on the City’s website and in the City Clerk’s Office at least 72 hours prior to a Regular Meeting and 24 hours prior to a Special Meeting. A hard copy of any agenda report may be requested by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (408) 615-2220, email clerk@santaclaraca.gov <mailto:clerk@santaclaraca.gov> or at the public information desk at any City of Santa Clara public library.
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation
Staff has no recommendation.
Staff
Reviewed by: Brian Doyle, City Attorney
Approved by: Deanna J. Santana, City Manager
ATTACHMENT
1. Draft resolution in support of State of California in United States v. California Ninth Circuit appeal