Challenge to state’s sanctuary law fails
Immigration advocates and state officials praised the Supreme Court’s rejection Monday of the Trump administration’s challenge to California’s sanctuary law restricting law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
The two central features of California’s law prohibit police, sheriff ’s deputies and state officers from notifying federal agents of the release dates of undocumented immigrants in their custody and bar them from holding the
immigrants beyond the end of their sentences so that agents can pick them up for deportation. The restrictions do not apply to inmates convicted of violent crimes.
Over the dissents of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, the court denied review of a lowercourt ruling that concluded the 2018 state law does not interfere illegally with federal immigration policy.
Another state law, also upheld by the court, requires employers to notify their workers whenever Immigration and Customs Enforcement or federal agents plan to check employment records to ensure that they’re allowed to work legally in the U.S.
The Trump administration argued that the California laws were aimed at interfering with immigration enforcement, and that the sanctuary law, SB54, violated a federal statute requiring states to let police inform federal agents of the immigration status of anyone in local custody.
The court’s rejection of those arguments marked a milestone victory for California in its ongoing resistance to the Trump administration, which has cracked down significantly on undocumented communities and sanctuary cities across the U.S. The administration has doubled down on deportations, threatened ICE raids in major cities and pushed to strip sanctuary jurisdictions of key funding.
A U.S. appeals court in February ruled that the Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement funds from several sanctuary states on the East Coast. Other appeals courts have ruled against the administration, preventing the government from doing the same in other states, including California.
The Justice Department sued California in 2018 after it implemented SB54 and other laws protecting undocumented immigrants.
The sanctuary law has stirred debate among some law enforcement officials, immigration advocates and conservatives over whether state officials have the authority to overrule federal immigration authorities and how far local jurisdictions can go to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Critics have blasted San Francisco, Santa Clara County and other jurisdictions for their stringent sanctuary policies, arguing that preventing police from notifying ICE when some immigrants are released from jail endangers communities.
President Trump has repeatedly condemned sanctuary cities on social media. In
April 2019, he said he was considering transporting undocumented immigrants into these California jurisdictions, though he did not appear to follow through.
Immigration advocates argue the state’s policies make communities safer because they not only enhance trust between immigrants and law enforcement, but allow immigrants to report crimes to police without fear of deportation. There are roughly 2.5 million undocumented immigrants in California, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.
“In California, we’ve seen the success that comes from building trust between law enforcement and our hardworking immigrant communities. The last thing we need to do is to erode that trust,” said California Attorney General Xavier Becerra in a statement Monday responding to the court action. He noted that the ruling affirmed the state’s right to decide its own public safety measures.
The Supreme Court’s decision is a “blow to the Trump administration’s racist agenda,” said the ICE Out of California coalition, a statewide group that advocated for the passage of SB54.
“It’s really a victory for our values of community, and it recognizes the power of local and state governments to use resources for good and protect residents from federal abuse,” said Jon Rodney, a spokesman for the coalition.
ICE and the Justice Department did not reply to requests for comment Monday.
Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which opposes sanctuary policies, said the high court should have taken up the case.
The Trump administration has argued for years that California’s laws not only interfered with federal immigration enforcement but violated a law requiring states to cooperate with federal agents.
But a federal judge in Sacramento ruled in July 2018 that the federal law did not require states to cooperate with immigration agents by informing them of impending release dates or holding immigrants for transfer to federal custody.
“California’s decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an ‘obstacle’ to that enforcement effort,” said U.S. District Judge John Mendez, an appointee of President George W. Bush. “Standing aside does not equate to standing in the way.”
A federal appeals court upheld Mendez’s ruling in April 2019.
The Supreme Court case is U.S. vs. California, 19532.