This morning, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in In re Jose C. Authored by Justice Werdegar, the Court held that state jurisdiction over delinquency proceedings was not preempted by the Supremacy Clause, or section 3231 of the U.S. Constitution. In recognizing California's power to regulate juvenile misconduct, the Court wrote: "Whether delinquency proceedings are treated as civil or criminal, the determinations they entail -- whether a minor should be declared a ward of the court and what juvenile treatment and rehabilitation he or she should be afforded -- do not trench on exclusive federal court prerogatives to try, convict, and punish for the violation of federal law. To the contrary, Congress, recognizing no comparable federal system exists, has made clear its preference that offenses by minors be handled, whenever possible, by state juvenile courts."
In re Jose C. involves a juvenile wardship proceeding under California's Welfare and Institutions Clause § 602 against a minor found smuggling six aliens into the United States along the California-Mexico border. Jose C. was sentenced to 10 years confinement and placed on formal probation. From the start, his defense counsel asserted that the juvenile court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the federal crime of bringing aliens into the country. Neither the juvenile court, nor the Court of Appeal accepted his argument.
Today the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal. In finding state court jurisdiction, the California Supreme Court turned to § 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Clause which grants jurisdiction to the juvenile court "for any person under the age of 18" who violates state or federal law. The Court found that § 602 incorporated federal criminal law by reference, making federal criminal law a possible basis for state court jurisdiction over juvenile offenders. This was found consistent with the proposition that state and federal governments could act as dual sovereigns in punishing one criminal act.
The Court also found that federal law regulating federal crimes related to immigration did not preempt state juvenile court jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court reasoned that in the absence of express removal of state court jurisdiction, the state and federal court had the power to interpret the same statutes. By recognizing the state court's ability to interpret federal law, the Court allowed a state juvenile court to interpret a federal law touching on immigration law. So, while the power to regulate immigration remains purely federal, the power to regulate does not necessarily preempt all state law addressing aliens. So long as the state law - in this case § 602 - mirrored federal objectives and furthered state interest, the Court found no reason for federal preemption.
The Court found it easy to find § 602 furthered federal objectives given its perception that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 expressed a preference for state juvenile dispositions for a juvenile's federal offenses. Furthermore, state jurisdiction furthered California's interest in rehabilitating delinquent juveniles and protecting public safety.
Today's decision may have some interesting effects, especially for federal prosecution of immigration offenses. While federal prosecution of immigration crimes has been steadily increasing, In re Jose C. allows state courts to prosecute juveniles for the same offenses. While today's decision is great news for those of us who hate to see state courts limit state power without an express federal directive, this decision does make me wonder, how many juvenile delinquents will California be imprisoning for violations of federal immigration law?
Today the California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal. In finding state court jurisdiction, the California Supreme Court turned to § 602 of the Welfare and Institutions Clause which grants jurisdiction to the juvenile court "for any person under the age of 18" who violates state or federal law. The Court found that § 602 incorporated federal criminal law by reference, making federal criminal law a possible basis for state court jurisdiction over juvenile offenders. This was found consistent with the proposition that state and federal governments could act as dual sovereigns in punishing one criminal act.
The Court also found that federal law regulating federal crimes related to immigration did not preempt state juvenile court jurisdiction. The California Supreme Court reasoned that in the absence of express removal of state court jurisdiction, the state and federal court had the power to interpret the same statutes. By recognizing the state court's ability to interpret federal law, the Court allowed a state juvenile court to interpret a federal law touching on immigration law. So, while the power to regulate immigration remains purely federal, the power to regulate does not necessarily preempt all state law addressing aliens. So long as the state law - in this case § 602 - mirrored federal objectives and furthered state interest, the Court found no reason for federal preemption.
The Court found it easy to find § 602 furthered federal objectives given its perception that the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974 expressed a preference for state juvenile dispositions for a juvenile's federal offenses. Furthermore, state jurisdiction furthered California's interest in rehabilitating delinquent juveniles and protecting public safety.
Today's decision may have some interesting effects, especially for federal prosecution of immigration offenses. While federal prosecution of immigration crimes has been steadily increasing, In re Jose C. allows state courts to prosecute juveniles for the same offenses. While today's decision is great news for those of us who hate to see state courts limit state power without an express federal directive, this decision does make me wonder, how many juvenile delinquents will California be imprisoning for violations of federal immigration law?
Leave a comment