Lexplug logoLexplug

United States v. State of California

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
921 F.3d 865 (2019)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

Under the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering doctrine, a state may refuse to assist in the enforcement of a federal program, and such refusal is not an unconstitutional obstacle under the Supremacy Clause. However, a state law violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity if it imposes a discriminatory burden on the federal government or those with whom it deals, regardless of how minimal that burden may be.


Facts:

  • The State of California enacted Assembly Bill 450 (AB 450), which in part requires employers to notify their employees within 72 hours of receiving notice of a federal immigration agency inspection of employment records.
  • California also enacted Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103), which requires the California Attorney General to conduct reviews of county, local, or private detention facilities housing federal civil immigration detainees.
  • The review mandated by AB 103 includes examining not only the conditions of confinement but also 'the circumstances around [the] apprehension and transfer' of detainees, a requirement not imposed on other state-inspected facilities.
  • Finally, California enacted Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), the 'California Values Act,' which limits cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities.
  • SB 54 prohibits state and local law enforcement from, among other things, transferring individuals to immigration authorities without a judicial warrant and from sharing an individual's release date or other personal information with federal immigration agents.

Procedural Posture:

  • The United States of America sued the State of California in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.
  • The United States moved for a preliminary injunction to block the enforcement of three California laws: AB 450, AB 103, and SB 54.
  • The district court granted the injunction in part (as to two provisions of AB 450 not at issue in the appeal) and denied it in part.
  • Specifically, the district court denied the injunction against AB 450's employee-notice provisions, all of AB 103, and all challenged provisions of SB 54.
  • The United States (Plaintiff-Appellant) appealed the district court's denial of the preliminary injunction on these provisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do California laws AB 450, AB 103, and SB 54, which limit employer and state/local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, violate the Supremacy Clause through conflict preemption or the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity?


Opinions:

Majority - Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr.

No, as to the challenged provisions of AB 450 and SB 54, but Yes, as to one provision of AB 103. While a state retains the right under the Tenth Amendment to refuse to assist in federal enforcement, it may not enact laws that discriminatorily burden federal operations. The employee-notice provisions of AB 450 are permissible because they regulate the employer-employee relationship without directly burdening federal activities. SB 54's non-cooperation measures are a valid exercise of California's power under the anticommandeering doctrine; refusing to assist federal enforcement is not the same as creating an unconstitutional obstacle, even if it makes the federal government's job more difficult. The court also held that SB 54 did not conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, interpreting that statute's scope narrowly to apply only to information regarding an individual's formal 'citizenship or immigration status,' not collateral information like release dates. However, the provision of AB 103 requiring review of the 'circumstances around [detainees'] apprehension and transfer' violates the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity because it imposes a novel, burdensome inspection requirement that discriminates against federal operations by applying only to facilities holding federal detainees. The court explicitly rejected a 'de minimis' exception, holding that any discriminatory burden on the federal government is unconstitutional.



Analysis:

This decision significantly clarifies the modern boundary between federal power and state sovereignty in the contentious area of immigration enforcement. It solidifies the power of states to enact 'sanctuary' policies by affirming that the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering doctrine protects a state's codified refusal to cooperate with federal authorities from obstacle preemption challenges. At the same time, the ruling reinforces a strict interpretation of intergovernmental immunity, establishing that states cannot single out federal operations for unique and burdensome regulations, no matter how small. This case provides a critical framework for future disputes between the federal government and states, distinguishing permissible non-cooperation from impermissible, discriminatory interference.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. State of California (2019)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"