Tag Archives: Supremacy Clause

More Opposition to California Sanctuary City Laws as San Diego Votes to Support Trump | Apr 17 2018

San Diego County supervisors vote 3-1 to support the Trump lawsuit against California sanctuary laws

|| U-T San Diego

“The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 3-1 to support the Trump administration’s lawsuit against California over laws that the state passed last year to limit its role in immigration enforcement.

The county will file an amicus brief at the first available opportunity, likely on appeal, said Kristin Gaspar, supervisor for District 3 and chairwoman of the board.

The Department of Justice filed the lawsuit against the state at the beginning of March over three laws.

SB 54, the law that received the most publicity when it passed, limits the ways in which local police can interact with federal immigration officials. Under the law, police can turn immigrants over to federal immigration enforcement agencies only if they have committed crimes listed in the legislation. It says local police cannot participate in task forces that are focused on immigration enforcement.

It also requires the California Attorney General to set policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, libraries and hospitals.

AB 103 prohibits local governments across California from adding new contracts with the federal government for civil immigration detention or expanding old ones. It also requires the California Attorney General’s office to monitor conditions in existing immigration detention facilities in the state.

AB 450 says that employers cannot voluntarily allow immigration officials into non-public areas of the workplace unless the officers have judicial warrants. It also requires employers to notify employees about upcoming immigration inspections.

“We’re talking about people who are crossing the border illegally, coming into this county and committing a crime and them being let loose probably to commit another crime,” said Dianne Jacob, supervisor for District 2. “That creates a public safety issue and creates a problem in our neighborhoods.”

Gaspar, Jacob and Supervisor Bill Horn voted to support the lawsuit. Supervisor Greg Cox voted no. Supervisor Ron Roberts had a previous commitment and did not attend the meeting.

A long line of supporters and detractors addressed the board Tuesday morning after a group of people hoping to dissuade the supervisors from supporting the lawsuit rallied outside.

Supporters of the lawsuit felt that the laws in question were an overreach of state power and worried that it would inhibit the federal government from deporting people with criminal convictions.

Critics said they worried that allowing local police to work closely with federal immigration officials, which the laws limit, would create less safe communities because immigrant victims or witnesses wouldn’t call the police.

Many accused Gaspar of bringing the issue to a county vote to gain media attention for her campaign to take the Congressional seat of Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Vista.”

…..Continue reading more @ U-T San Diego

 

Jerry Brown Blames ‘Low-Life Politicians’ for ‘Sanctuary State’ Backlash

|| Breitbart

“California Governor Jerry Brown blamed “low-life politicians” for a growing backlash against the “sanctuary state” policies he has enacted in his state during an appearance at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, on Tuesday.

Brown spoke as a revolt continues to spread throughout Southern California against the state’s sanctuary laws in the wake of a Department of Justice lawsuit filed last month against the Golden State’s “sanctuary” laws.

The lawsuit seeks to invalidate three state laws — the Immigrant Worker Protection Act (HB 450), the Inspection and Review of Facilities Housing Federal Detainees law (AB 103); and the California Values Act (SB 54) — under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Roughly a dozen local governments have joined the revolt, and many more are considering joining the lawsuit, with three new cities climbing aboard last week.”

….Continue reading more @ Breitbart

California Passes ‘State Sanctuary’ Bill | Sep 16 2017

California Goes Full Sanctuary State With Sweeping Immigration Bill

|| Daily Caller

“California lawmakers punctuated the end of the 2017 legislative season by passing a comprehensive immigration bill that makes the state one of the nation’s most hostile to federal immigration authorities.

In a party line vote early Saturday morning, the state senate passed SB 54, a long-debated measure to shield illegal immigrants from the Trump administration’s strict immigration enforcement.

The bill sharply limits state and local law enforcement communication with federal immigration authorities, and prevents police officers from questioning or detaining people on civil immigration violations.

Entitled the “California Values Act,” the final version passed the Democratic-controlled Senate by a vote of 27-11. The bill, now headed to Gov. Jerry Brown, is a scaled-back revision of an earlier proposal that would have cut off communication and resource-sharing with federal immigration authorities except in cases backed by a criminal warrant.

Democratic lawmakers amended SB 54 after negotiations with Brown last week to allow immigration agents to keep working with state corrections officials. Legislators also agreed to allow state and local police to hand over criminal aliens to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the subject has been convicted of one or more of 800 crimes enumerated in a previous law, the California Trust Act.

California senate leader Kevin De Leon said the changes wouldn’t alter the fundamental objective of the law: preventing law enforcement from aiding the Trump administration’s deportation crackdown against supposedly non-violent illegal immigrants.

“These amendments do not mean to erode the core mission of this measure, which is to protect hardworking families that have contributed greatly to our culture and the economy,” he said according to the Los Angles Times. “This is a measure that reflects the values of who we are as a great state.”

De Leon introduced SB 54 in December in response to Trump’s victory in the 2016 election. The measure was one of several introduced by Democratic lawmakers to benefit California’s 2.3 million illegal immigrant residents. Other proposals included using public funds for immigrants’ legal defense and expanding employer protections against ICE operations at work sites.

The original draft of SB 54 drew protest from many of California’s law enforcement officials and some Democratic lawmakers, who worried its severe restrictions on cooperation with ICE would allow dangerous criminal aliens to avoid detention. De Leon’s compromise with Brown made the bill palatable for California Assembly Speaker Anthony Rendon and moved the California Police Chiefs Association from opposed to neutral, reports the Los Angeles Times.

The amended version of SB 54 still has significant opposition in California’s law enforcement community. In a statement released in advance of Saturday’s vote, the California Sheriffs Association said the bill “goes too far in cutting off communications” with the federal government and prevents notification about the pending release of public safety threats such as repeat drunk drivers and hit-and-run suspects.

The passage of SB 54, which Brown is expected to sign in the coming weeks, will likely worsen tension between California and federal law enforcement officials. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has threatened to withhold certain federal grants from jurisdictions that refuse to honor immigration detention requests or give ICE agents access to local jails. He has singled out San Francisco and Los Angeles as cities whose sanctuary policies run afoul of new Department of Justice eligibility rules for criminal justice grants.

On Friday, a federal judge in Chicago gave California, and every other state, a temporary reprieve from Sessions’ crackdown. U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber issued a nationwide injunction that blocks the Department of Justice from implementing the new guidelines while Chicago’s lawsuit against the order is is evaluated by the courts.”

….Continue reading more @ Daily Caller

 

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE DEFINED

|| Laws.com

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

“The Supremacy Clause is that which derives from Constitutional law and sets forth that three distinct areas of legislation be at the forefront. It states that the Constitution, Federal statutes, and United States treaties encompass the “supreme law of the land”, therefore making them the highest areas of law possible within the legal system of America. The Supremacy Clause may be found in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.

A landmark case representing one of the earliest examples of the use of the Supremacy Clause is that of McCulloch v. Maryland. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that the State of Maryland had no legal right to tax the Second Bank of the United States as a Federal entity. This exhibited how the Supremacy Clause called into question the actions of the State, and therefore, made it so that the State could not legally tax the Federal Government.
Another case that made use of the Supremacy Clause in connection with Constitutional law was that of Missouri v. Holland. This Supreme Court case was conducted over the cause of international treaties. The Court ruled that the power of the Federal Government to enforce treaties overrode that of the State’s authority to voice concerns as to the violation of their local rights as prescribed from the 10th Amendment.
This Amendment was used by the Supreme Court following the Civil War and stated that states assumed the rights to powers not already set forth for the Federal Government. This did not last long, however, as everything was shifted to the Government to have vast national power, which meant that the Federal Government could not be subject to State law aside from by its own volition.
In addition, the Supremacy Clause also maintains that State legislatures assume, in one way or another, the guidelines and procedures set forth by the Federal Government. This is due to the presentation of two issues that stem from State and Federal conflict. These include Congress’ surpassing of its original authority as well as its overall intent in going over that of State policy. In both cases, Congress may be acting with the express authority of creating uniformity of legislature. In such a way it may be attempting to enable the coexistence of Federal and State government.
A case that highlighted such issues of Federal law presuming power over State action is that of Pennsylvania v. Nelson. In this case, the Supreme Court instituted qualifications for when the Government does encroach upon the rule of states, even when absent of apparent intent. These include that the Federal law is so extensive that states may not be able to adequately supplement it, the fact of the “Federal interest’s dominance,” and whether “State law” is in so much of a contrast to the Federal administration that it may only do harm to it. Such cases represent the ways in which the Supremacy Clause has been employed.”

Immigration | More Judicial Obstruction on Sanctuary Cities | Apr 25, 2017

Judge blocks President Trump’s sanctuary city funding freeze

|| San Jose Mercury News

“SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge Tuesday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding, dealing a blow to the Trump Administration’s efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities and counties.

With Santa Clara County and San Francisco’s landmark motion for a preliminary injunction approved, the section of the executive order applying to sanctuary jurisdictions will not go into effect until the court rules on the county’s Feb. 3 lawsuit against the administration.

District Judge William Orrick issued a ruling less than two weeks after a hearing on the case. Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrant rights.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump Administration tried to do an end run around it,” Chavez said in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said Santa Clara County and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly. The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said. Republican President Donald Trump was using a “bully pulpit” to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law,” Readler said.

The case has placed Santa Clara and San Francisco at the center of a contentious debate about sanctuary cities and counties. Hundreds of jurisdictions around the country have declared themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, proclaiming they will not turn those immigrants over to federal agents, despite repeated threats from the Trump Administration.

Orrick appeared to sense the ambiguity of the policy, at one point asking, “What would the purpose of the executive order be?”

….Continue reading more @ Mercury News

 

Federal judge blocks Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order

|| Washington Examiner

“A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s sanctuary cities executive order.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County both won preliminary injunctions on Tuesday against Trumps’ Jan. 25 executive order that moved to cut off federal funding from cities that limit their cooperation with federal immigration requests.

According to San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick, the loss of funds would cause cities “to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction.”

Orrick also cited public comments from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, saying the two “erased” any “doubt about the scope of the order.”

However, the federal government is still able to enforce existing conditions of federal grants and does not restrict it from “developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction,'” Orrick ruled.

There are at least three other lawsuits against similar language in the executive order.

Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez called it a victory for immigrants.

“We’re fighting for the United States Constitution and we succeeded after the Trump administration tried to do an end run around it,” said Chavez in a statement. “The court’s decision is a win for the neediest people in our nation. Seniors in need of food, foster youth in need of shelter and children who need medical care. We’ll continue being a welcoming, safe and diverse community.”

The federal government has been taking actions targeting so-called sanctuary cities since the January executive order, such has rolling back Justice Department grants that a city can receive contingent on cooperating with immigration requests under Section 1317 of 8 U.S. Code.

The decision comes only months after courts ruled against key portions of two of Trump’s immigration-related executive orders.”

…..Continue reading more @ WashingtonExaminer

The Danger of Sanctuary Cities | Apr 2016

Sanctuary Cities and the Concept of Federal Preemption and the Supremacy Clause | Nov 21 2016