State defends its sanctuary laws against Trump administration suit
The Trump administration’s challenge to California’s sanctuary laws as obstacles to immigration enforcement is actually an attempt to interfere with the state’s authority over local law enforcement and private workplaces, state lawyers contend in their final arguments before this week’s federal court hearing.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California in March over three state laws that legislators passed last year. The laws limit immigration officers’ access to information about noncitizens in local custody, bar federal agents from workplaces without a warrant, and allow the state to inspect private jails that contract with the federal government to hold undocumented immigrants.
U.S. District Judge John Mendez of Sacramento will hear arguments Wednesday on Justice Department motions to halt enforcement of the laws and the state’s request to dismiss the government’s suit.
The most far-reaching law is SB54 by state Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles. It prohibits local officers from holding immigrants beyond their scheduled release dates, from notifying federal agents of an immigrant’s upcoming release date, or from disclosing personal information about an immigrant in local custody. The restrictions don’t apply to undocumented immigrants held on serious charges, and don’t prevent sheriffs from disclosing release dates they also make available to the public,
as some counties are now doing online.
The administration’s lawsuit contends SB54 illegally obstructs immigration enforcement and violates a federal law requiring states to let police disclose information about a detainee’s immigration status. The state counters that the law does not require disclosure of detainees’ release dates or personal information, and that the Trump administration is trying to “commandeer” local law enforcement for its own purposes.
The federal government has no authority to “control how the state’s law enforcement officers must act in the context of the state’s criminal laws,” Attorney General Xavier Becerra’s office said in its latest filing. It said federal judges, most recently in Philadelphia, have rejected similar Trump administration arguments against cities and counties that limit police cooperation with immigration officers.
Becerra’s office also defended the state law that may be the most vulnerable to legal challenges, an attempt to curb workplace raids by immigration agents. AB450 by Assemblyman David Chiu, D-San Francisco, prohibits private employers from allowing federal agents into nonpublic areas unless the agents have a warrant or the entry is authorized by federal law.
AB450 is an exercise of the state’s long-standing authority “to regulate the workplace and employment relationships,” striking a balance between federal access and “employees’ inalienable privacy rights,” Becerra’s office argued.
But Trump administration lawyers say the state has gone too far by imposing financial penalties — up to $5,000 for a first violation and as much as $10,000 the next time — on employers who voluntarily give federal agents access to their workplaces. Several legal commentators have predicted that the courts will find AB450 interferes with federal law.
It’s comparable to a state trying to penalize employers who allowed federal agents into the workplace to collect information on racial discrimination or environmental pollution, said Vikram Amar, the University of Illinois law school dean.
The third law, AB103, allows the state attorney general’s office to inspect private facilities that hold immigrants facing deportation hearings. The Trump administration argues that federal detention sites are immune from state examination, but the state says the private jails are subject to the same safety standards as county jails and state prisons.