Skip to comments.Some of the California 'sanctuary' laws targeted by feds could be vulnerable, legal experts say
Posted on 03/08/2018 10:22:18 AM PST by jazusamo
California's three new "sanctuary" laws, challenged in court this week by the Trump administration, face different hurdles and have varying vulnerabilities, legal experts said Wednesday.
Law professors who read the lawsuit filed by Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions generally described it as a credible challenge that presents complex legal questions that might wind up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
"The arguments made by the Justice Department are not at all lightweight arguments," said Pepperdine law school professor Douglas W. Kmiec. "They are quite substantial."
The federal government has wide authority over matters of immigration, and Sessions has charged that California's new laws usurp or preempt federal rules.
The supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says federal law takes precedence over state laws, and Sessions' suit accuses California's new regulations of violating that provision.
Most analysts said they expected California would prevail in defending a law that prohibits state and local law enforcement from voluntarily giving federal immigration authorities information about the release dates of immigrant inmates.
Federal district judges have decided in favor of cities with ordinances that limit law enforcement's cooperation with immigration agents, and the Supreme Court has ruled that the federal government may not commandeer states into becoming the enforcement agents of federal law.
In 1997, for example, the Supreme Court said a federal law requiring state and local governments to do background checks before issuing permits for firearms violated the 10th Amendment.
"The state is trying to say, we are only going to cooperate with the federal government to the extent required by federal law," said UC Davis law school Dean Kevin R. Johnson.
California acknowledges that "the federal government is in charge of immigration, and we have to cooperate," Johnson said, " but we don't have to go one inch further."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
So Arizona isn’t allowed to pass and enforce immigration law that mirrors the feral government’s, but California is allowed to pass and enforce immigration law that negates the feral government’s?
Yet Judge Nappy stated on Fox Business a hour or so ago that the Mayor of Oakland’s verbal warnings were not prosecutable as “utterances” were not disallowed under Federal Law. Is that why she is not in irons?
Support Free Republic, Folks!
The one they say may survive is awful. Refusing to tell the feds when you’re going to release incarcerated criminals.
I say send in the national guard or army and do a mass round up of illegals. Then see if they feel their laws are worth it.
Agreed, If the CA NG was federalized and given the mission of rounding up illegal aliens in the name of national security it would blow Moonbeams mind along with other CA libtards.
6 - I’d buy popcorn for that one.
That would be great.
“”The state is trying to say, we are only going to cooperate with the federal government to the extent required by federal law,” said UC Davis law school Dean Kevin R. Johnson.
California acknowledges that “the federal government is in charge of immigration, and we have to cooperate,” Johnson said, “ but we don’t have to go one inch further.”
I’d say they’ve gone way past an inch!
Absolutely, more like a mile.
When any state starts passing unconstitutional laws they should and have to be slapped down.
Those unconstitutional laws bring the flakes like Libby Schaaf and others out of the woodwork.
When was the last time any liberal ended up in irons? The laws are for us peons, not the liberal elites...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.