Sessions blasts state chief justice
U.S. attorney general says remarks on ‘stalking’ courts are misguided
Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the head of homeland security rebuked the chief justice of the California Supreme Court for asking federal immigration agents to quit “stalking” local courthouses as a strategy to arrest people who are in the country illegally.
“As the chief judicial officer of the State of California, your characterization of federal law enforcement officers is particularly troubling,” read the letter, which was dated Wednesday and signed by Sessions and John F. Kelly.
In March, Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye wrote to Sessions and Kelly saying she was concerned about reports from the state’s trial courts that federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents appeared to be “stalking” unauthorized immigrants to make arrests.
Her comments were echoed by San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón, Public Defender Jeff Adachi and City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who said such arrests could jeopardize public safety. Policies that could drive victims of crime from courthouses, they said, “undermine the administration of justice.”
Sessions and Kelly said in their letter, which was first reported by Politico, that the state of California and many counties had enacted laws designed to “prohibit or hinder ICE from enforcing immigration law” by denying federal agents the ability to take custody of deportable people in county jails.
California’s Trust Act limits the situations in which jails can hold individuals wanted
by immigration agents longer than their release date. In San Francisco, a criminal warrant is required.
“Such policies threaten public safety, rather than enhance it,” Sessions and Kelly wrote. “As a result, ICE officers and agents are required to locate and arrest these aliens in public places, rather than in secure jail facilities where the risk of injury” is higher.
Courthouses, on the other hand, give agents a place where visitors are screened for weapons and decrease the risk to officers and the people being arrested, the Trump administration officials wrote.
Sessions and Kelly asked Cantil-Sakauye to “express your concerns” to Gov. Jerry Brown and local officials that enacted policies that “occasionally necessitate ICE officers and agents to make arrests at courthouses and other public places.” State and local leaders have made clear in public statements that they oppose the administration’s immigration plans.
Cantil-Sakauye responded Friday by saying she appreciated the letter and the “admission” from the administration officials that “they are in state courthouses making federal arrests.” She continued her criticism of the practice.
“Making arrests at courthouses, in my view, undermines public safety because victims and witnesses will fear coming to courthouses to help enforce the law,” she said in a statement. “I am disappointed that despite local and state public safety issues at stake, courthouses are not on ICE’s ‘sensitive areas’ list that includes schools, churches, and hospitals.”
Advocates for immigrants have maintained that local jail officials who are asked to honor immigration holds have many good reasons to deny the requests — including increased costs, the possibility of wrongly detaining U.S. citizens, and legal liability related to incarcerating people beyond their release dates.
Gascón said Friday that the idea that local policies were hindering immigration agents was “spectacular.” Referring to federal requests to hold inmates, he said, “The nation’s top law enforcement officer is effectively advocating for an end run around the Constitution’s due process protections. Three words: Get a warrant.”
Gascón said the tactic of coming to courthouses was “born from xenophobia, and not a genuine concern for public safety,” and could backfire by setting free criminals whose victims may be “scared to come to our courthouses to testify against defendants because ICE is waiting for them.”
Sessions and Kelly said federal agents would improve their operations — including handling challenges such as local policies — while continuing to “take prudent and reasonable actions within their lawful authority to achieve their mission.”