https://apple.news/A47vetrPUSg2Xm8cqHJuFlQ
Sophie Weiner reports for Splinter:
Yet again the Trump administration has had one of their cruel immigration policies smacked down byfederal judges. This time, it was the administration’s attempt to prevent California from carrying out sanctuary laws which protect undocumented immigrants in the state, according to Bloomberg.
A three judge panel at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the administration’s attempt to shut down California sanctuary policies. The panel affirmed a previous decision by a federal judge in Sacramento, who ruled that a 2017 immigrant sanctuary regulation, which restricts local police’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities, doesn’t conflict with constitutional law.
From Bloomberg:
The appeals court concluded that while Congress may have expected cooperation between state and federal authorities on immigration enforcement, Washington doesn’t have the constitutional power to require California’s assistance.
The decision regarded the California law SB 54, also known as the California Values Act, which was signed by former Governor Jerry Brown in 2017.
“SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government’s immigration enforcement efforts,” the court panel wrote. “However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts.”
The panel also upheld a state law that requires employers to inform workers before workplace inspections by federal immigration authorities, and told a lower court judge to take another look at a law that “authorizes the state attorney general to inspect facilities that house immigrants not detained for criminal offenses,” according to Bloomberg.
Many of the Trump administration’s attempts to harden immigration policy have met resistance in the courts. Most recently, the “Remain in Mexico” policy, which requires asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their claims are processed, was blocked by a federal judge. Since then, the decision has been temporarily reversed.
It’s somewhat ironic that this decision would come down now, the week after it was made public that the Trump administration considered dumping undocumented people in these so-called “sanctuary cities.” After the absurd and cruel suggested policy was publicized, Trump threatened to do something similar, suggesting that immigrants who were caught crossing the border but couldn’t be detained should be sent to liberal cities with sanctuary laws like San Francisco.
************************************
In addition to being really stupid (you’re not going to get much useful cooperation from states and cities by suing them) this litigation borders on Constitutionally frivolous. It’s wasting the time of the Federal Courts.
Undoubtedly, a competent Administration with rational immigration enforcement priorities could have reached accommodations with most jurisdictions on genuine law enforcement issues (not the mindless “deport anyone who is here without documents” program).
There was a time when professionals with some backbone at the DOJ and in the Solicitor General’s Office would have “just said no” to this type of “garbage litigation” being pushed by White House politicos. But, not today’s DOJ and today’s Solicitor General who see themselves as Trump’s sycophantic lawyers rather than upholding their oaths of office and serving the American people (who, after all, pay their salaries, not Trump — who apparently doesn’t even pay taxes). (Sessions’s downfall was that he saw himself more as an instrument of hate, racism, and xenophobia than as a personal protector of the Trumps.)
The Trump Kakistocracy has destroyed the remaining integrity of the DOJ and forced many of its best lawyers to leave, “go underground,” or become “hall walkers” to survive. That’s going to be bad for America long after Trump finally leaves office.
PWS
04-19-19