ISSUES RANGE FROM LAND USE TO CENSUS TO IMMIGR ATION

“ideological judging.”

The state is also likely to receive receptive hearings when its cases reach the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in San Francisco, which has been a frequent target of Trump’s criticism. The Supreme Court is a more attractive forum from the administration’s perspective, but the justices agree to hear very few cases.

The lawsuits all have distinct features, but collectively they pose fascinating questions about the Constitution’s allocation of power between the federal government and the states. They also give rise to a teachable moment in legal opportunism.

“Blue states and blue cities are making arguments about limited federal power that are traditionally associated with the political right,” Somin said. “On the other hand, the Trump administration is staking out a very broad position on federal power.”

Land use

On Monday, the Trump administration sued to strike down a state law that made it harder for the federal government to sell or transfer federal lands by giving a state commission the right of first refusal.

The law was meant to protect the state’s natural resources, Becerra said. “Our public lands should not be on the auction block to the highest bidder,” he said in a statement.

The administration’s legal arguments are substantial, drawing on the Constitution and the law under which California was admitted to the Union.

Levinson said her preliminary assessment of the suit was that “it looks like the federal government has quite a strong argument.”

But Professor Michael Blumm, who teaches at Lewis and Clark Law School in Portland, Oregon, said “it isn’t clear why the federal government claims it’s not possible to recognize a right of first refusal and carry out its other obligations.”

He added, “Isn’t there some irony in a DOJ headed by an ardent states-rightser, Jeff Sessions, arguing for federal pre-emption of state authority under the Property Clause?”

California has not yet filed its response to the suit. Based on the Trump administration’s complaint, though, the state law appears to be in trouble.

Sanctuary laws

Last month, the Trump administration sued California over parts of three so-called sanctuary laws protecting unauthorized immigrants. “Immigration law is the province of the federal government,” Sessions said in announcing the suit. But, he added, “California has enacted a number of laws designed to intentionally obstruct the work of our sworn immigration enforcement officers — to intentionally use every power it has to undermine duly-established immigration law in America.”

One of the challenged laws, for instance, prohibits state officials from telling federal ones when unauthorized immigrants are to be released from state custody, which is an issue near and dear to Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, who came under fire by federal officials last month for warning residents of immigration raids.

“The executive branch should be able to remove criminal aliens from a jail instead of your neighborhood,” Sessions said in a statement Monday.

Becerra responded: “We’re not going to let the Trump administration coerce us into doing the federal government’s job of enforcing federal immigration law. We’re in the business of public safety, not deportation.”

A second challenged law requires state officials to inspect some facilities that house people detained on behalf of the federal government. A third restricts employers from cooperating with immigration officials.

The administration’s lawsuit seems likely to give rise to a split decision, with courts upholding some but not all of the state’s laws.

The census

Last month, California sued the Trump administration over its decision to add a question about citizenship to the forms to be used in the 2020 census. Several other states have filed a separate suit.

The Constitution requires an “actual enumeration” of the nation’s residents every 10 years. The information gathered is used to allocate congressional seats and to disburse federal money.

“The federal government should have an accurate count of who can legally vote in our federal elections,” Sessions said Monday.

California’s lawsuit said that adding a question on citizenship would depress participation and hurt communities with a high proportion of unauthorized immigrants. It said it has more to lose than any other state, as it has more foreign-born residents and noncitizens than any other.

The state’s lawsuit has a decent chance of success. The decision to alter the census form was sudden and consequential, and courts may be reluctant to allow such a drastic change.

Sanctuary cities

Last year, California sued the administration over its plans to deny federal funding to so-called sanctuary cities unless they begin cooperating with federal immigration agents.

“The Trump administration cannot manipulate federal grant fund requirements to pressure states, counties or municipalities to enforce federal immigration laws,” Becerra said at the time.

A Justice Department spokesman responded that the state was putting the welfare of unauthorized immigrants ahead of public safety.

The state lost a round in the case in March, when Judge William H. Orrick of the U.S. District Court in San Francisco declined to issue a preliminary injunction. Orrick, noting that courts around the nation had come to varying conclusions in similar suits, said “the issues in this case will benefit from further development.”Somin has, however, written that attaching conditions to federal grants can be at odds with federalism.

It is hard to say whether the state will prevail in its suit, as much depends on how, when and why the federal government denies funding. But there is little question some denials can give rise to constitutional problems.

DACA

In January, California won a major victory, persuading a judge to block the Trump administration’s efforts to shut down a program that shields some 700,000 young unauthorized immigrants from deportation. The Supreme Court turned down a hail-mary appeal from the administration in February, and the case will now make its way up the court system in the usual way.

Trump ended the program, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, last September, calling it an unconstitutional use of executive power by his predecessor and reviving the threat of deportation for immigrants who had been brought to the United States illegally as young children.

But Judge William H. Alsup ordered the administration to maintain major pieces of the program while legal challenges move forward, notably by requiring the administration to allow people enrolled in it to renew their protected status. The administration has not sought a stay of that injunction.

The 9th Circuit is set to hear arguments in the case in May, and the state’s chances of winning in that court are good. But the Supreme Court may well hear an appeal, and there the state could face headwinds.

Emissions

The next major court fight between California and the Trump administration may involve greenhouse gas emissions.

The state has a waiver under the Clean Air Act that allows it to enforce stronger air pollution standards than those set by the federal government.

Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has said he is dissatisfied with that state of affairs.

“California is not the arbiter of these issues,” he said in on Bloomberg TV last month.

On Monday, the agency took steps to challenge California’s waiver. The process is likely to produce another clash between the Trump administration and the state that has emerged as its most determined foe.