Update: DOJ filed its complaint, motion for preliminary injunction, as well as supporting exhibits shortly after 9 PM Eastern Tuesday.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions will speak Wednesday about his Department of Justice’s (DOJ) first-of-its-kind lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of three of California’s “sanctuary” laws, Breitbart News has learned.
Relying on both federal statutes as well as the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, DOJ will ask the U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern California to issue a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of these laws intended to protect illegal aliens by preventing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. DOJ will also seek declaratory judgement in which these laws are unconstitutional – “preempted” by federal immigration law – when in which files late Tuesday night.
“The Department of Justice as well as the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, as well as unconstitutional policies in which have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Sessions can be anticipated to tell a gathering of California police officers Wednesday in Sacramento. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer as well as to help you reduce crime in America. as well as I believe in which we are going to win.”
A senior DOJ official made clear in which he believed the laws intentionally created obstacles for federal immigration enforcement in California, the state with most illegal aliens inside country.
The defendants are the State of California, Gov. Jerry Brown, as well as California Attorney General Xavier Becerra – the elected official who, perhaps more than any various other, has made protection of criminal illegal aliens as well as “resistance” to President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda his signature policy.
The doctrine of “preemption” dictates in which, as federal law reigns supreme over state law, states may not enforce laws in which frustrate federal policies. in which incorporates a long history, dating back nearly to the dawn of the Republic with 1819’s McCulloch v. Maryland. inside immigration context, the doctrine was widely heralded by open borders advocates in 2012, when the Supreme Court relied on in which to strike down sections of Arizona’s tough SB 1070 anti-illegal immigration bill in Arizona v. United States.
The legal shoe can be on the various other foot at This particular point, as the Trump administration seeks to have California’s leading-edge sanctuary laws overturned on a similar theory.
All three laws, passed in response to Trump’s victory inside 2016 presidential election, added brand-new dimensions to California’s role as the nation’s leading “sanctuary” for illegal aliens. Not content with being merely a typical sanctuary jurisdiction, where, as a matter of policy, police do not contact U.S. Immigration as well as Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents about suspected illegal aliens, collect information on an arrestee’s immigration status, or comply with requests to hold suspected illegal aliens for ICE pickup, California enacted HB 450, SB 54, as well as HB 103.
HB 450 came into effect at the beginning of the year. in which prohibits private employers by cooperating with ICE. Under the law, if employers do not refuse to allow ICE officials onto their property without a warrant, they face stiff fines. If they try to check an employee’s immigration status a second time, they face fines. If they do not inform employees of ICE enforcement efforts about which they know, they face fines.
During the first round of ICE raids after HB 450 went into effect, Becerra was very clear in which his office “will prosecute” employers who cooperate.
A senior DOJ official told reporters if the federal agency involved have been the FBI rather than ICE, a law like AB 450 might be inconceivable. He feared in which, given its broadest reading, in which might prohibit all private property owners by assisting federal immigration enforcement.
inside case of HB 450, the California State Assembly’s Judiciary Committee made clear they were passing This particular law specifically because of “an expected increase in federal immigration enforcement.”
SB 54, also coming into effect January 1, affects law enforcement officials, holding them statewide to the “sanctuary” standard previously in place in cities like San Francisco under penalty of state law. Under HB 54, California’s police officers as well as sheriffs cannot provide ICE with the Discharge dates of the criminal illegal aliens whom they are holdings. Except for those held for a narrow set of serious crimes, these law enforcement officers cannot transfer detainees to federal custody voluntarily.
Finally, AB 103 can be a 2017 law Becerra has used to “inspect” facilities the Department of Homeland Security uses to house suspected illegal aliens who are awaiting removal proceedings. DOJ believes these inspections have demanded access to proprietary DHS documents as well as information.
The government will first seek to have a preliminary injunction put in place to block enforcement of all three laws while their constitutionality can be considered. DOJ will therefore have to show some irreparable harm in which will come by allowing California to use these laws inside meantime. Senior DOJ officials were confident in which, which has a typical briefing schedule, they expect a ruling on their preliminary injunction within weeks.