Senate Bill 54, authored by state Senate leader Kevin de León (D-Los Angeles), in many cases prohibits state and local police agencies from notifying federal officials about the impending release of immigrants in custody who may be deported.* * *Crandall said SB54 infringes on local governments' authority to practice policies they know are appropriate for themselves. Cities have a "better view and better ability" to oversee their needs in certain areas, he added.
Though the state may have had good intentions, Crandall said, there are "constitutional protections" for cities from the "ever-extending tentacles" of state rule.
I have not yet been able to get the text of the decision.
Of course, the ruling of one superior court is not the last word. I expect this issue is headed for the California Supreme Court.
In the federal case, Judge Mendez found that the same provision does not violate the federal constitution, which could set up a circuit split on the subject. See the previous post. However, if the provision is shot down on state law grounds, that would moot the federal question.
2. Originalism is wise and nonpartisan.Studying the Constitution requires diligence and intelligence--especially for those, like Kavanaugh, who are "originalists," paying special heed to what the Constitution's words originally meant when adopted. I too am an originalist. In prioritizing the Constitution's text, history, and structure to discern its principles and to distill its wisdom, we originalists are following in the footsteps of George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Marshall, Joseph Story, and Abraham Lincoln, among others.Originalism is neither partisan nor outlandish.4. The most important originalist of the last century was a towering liberal Democratic Senator-turned-Justice, Hugo Black, the driving intellectual force of the Warren Court, who insisted on taking seriously the Constitution's words and spirit guaranteeing free speech, racial equality, religious equality, the right to vote, the right to counsel, and much more. Among today's scholars, the originalist cited most often by the Supreme Court is also a self-described liberal and a registered Democrat--yours truly.5The best originalists heed not just the Founders' vision but also the vision underlying its amendments--especially the transformative Reconstruction Amendments and Woman Suffrage Amendment. I believe that Justice Kavanaugh will be in this tradition.6 On various vital issues--voting rights, governmental immunities, congressional power to enforce the Reconstruction Amendments--Justice Kavanaugh's constitutional views may well be better for liberals than were Justice Kennedy's.--------------------------
Exclusionary rule: In Hudson v. Michigan (2006), Justice Antonin Scalia wrote an opinion--joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito--that called for the elimination of the exclusionary rule in Fourth Amendment cases. He argued that the costs of excluding evidence when police officers violate the Fourth Amendment outweigh the benefits of doing so. Justice Kennedy agreed to the result in that case, but declared that the continued operation of the exclusionary rule was not in doubt. But with Kennedy being replaced by Kavanaugh, there could be five votes to overrule a doctrine that conservatives have opposed for decades.Really? I have been arguing to limit Mapp for many years. I think I would remember if the Supreme Court came within a single vote of overruling it completely, especially in a case where my organization filed a brief.
The Ninth Circuit today decided Young v. Hawaii, No. 12-17808:
We must decide whether the Second Amendment encompasses the right of a responsible law-abiding citizen to carry a firearm openly for self-defense outside of the home.* * *As was the case in Peruta II, we find ourselves navigating waters uncharted by Heller and McDonald: the degree to which the Second Amendment protects, or does not protect, the carrying of firearms outside of the home.* * *We do not take lightly the problem of gun violence, which the State of Hawaii "has understandably sought to fight . . . with every legal tool at its disposal." Wrenn, 864 F.3d at 667. We see nothing in our opinion that would prevent the State from regulating the right to bear arms, for the Second Amendment leaves the State "a variety of tools for combatting [the problem of gun violence], including some measures regulating handguns." Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.But, for better or for worse, the Second Amendment does protect a right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. We would thus flout the Constitution if we were to hold that, "in regulating the manner of bearing arms, the authority of [the State] has no other limit than its own discretion." Reid, 1 Ala. at 616. While many respectable scholars and activists might find virtue in a firearms-carry regime that restricts the right to a privileged few, "the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table." Heller, 554 U.S. at 636.
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.
