Yesterday, Federal District Judge John Mendez in Sacramento issued his decision on the federal government's motion for a preliminary injunction in the California "sanctuary state" case, United States v. California. The suit involves a package of three bills enacted by the California Legislature. CJLF's amicus brief in the case focuses on the bill restricting private employers' voluntary cooperation with federal immigration authorities, AB 450. Judge Mendez enjoined enforcement of the bulk of AB 450 pending final resolution of the litigation. Here are the key holdings on this portion of the suit.
The Court finds that a law which imposes monetary penalties on an employer solely because that employer voluntarily consents to federal immigration enforcement's entry into nonpublic areas of their place of business or access to their employment records impermissibly discriminates against those who choose to deal with the Federal Government.* * *Prohibiting employers from reverifying employment eligibility complicates the subjective element of the crime; e.g., could an employer who might otherwise be found to "know" that one of its employees lacks authorization find shelter behind the state law because it could not confirm its suspicion? The law frustrates the system of accountability that Congress designed.
The provision of AB 450 requiring employers to give employees notice of inspections as well as the other bills in the package, which were not challenged in our brief, were not enjoined. Much of this legislation may well fall into the category famously described by Justice Scalia as "stupid but constitutional."
The most doubtful part of the decision is the portion upholding the ability of the state to forbid local governments from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration authorities. The court notes a decision of the Second Circuit going the other way, City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29, 35 (1999), but says it has been undercut by Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 138 S. Ct. 1461, 1476 (2018).
No doubt both parties will appeal. Stay tuned.
Leave a comment