Laura Jarrett reports for CNN:
(CNN)A federal judge in California on Monday flatly rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to modify a decades-old settlement agreement that limits the length of time and conditions under which US officials may detain immigrant children.
The Justice Department had asked US District Judge Dolly Gee to modify what’s known as the Flores settlement to give the Trump administration maximum flexibility to detain families not only until their criminal proceedings conclude, but also through the end of any asylum proceedings, which could drag on for many months.In a strongly worded order, Gee added that there was no basis for the change, calling it “procedurally improper and wholly without merit.”“It is apparent that Defendants’ Application is a cynical attempt, on an ex parte basis, to shift responsibility to the Judiciary for over 20 years of Congressional inaction and ill-considered Executive action that have led to the current stalemate. The parties voluntarily agreed to the terms of the Flores Agreement more than two decades ago. The Court did not force the parties into the agreement nor did it draft the contractual language. Its role is merely to interpret and enforce the clear and unambiguous language to which the parties agreed, applying well-established principles of law.“Regardless, what is certain is that the children who are the beneficiaries of the Flores Agreement’s protections and who are now in Defendants’ custody are blameless. They are subject to the decisions made by adults over whom they have no control. In implementing the Agreement, their best interests should be paramount,” Gee wrote.Gee said that “absolutely nothing prevents Defendants from reconsidering their current blanket policy of family detention and reinstating prosecutorial discretion.”CNN has reached out to the Justice Department for comment.
A federal judge on Monday dismissed most of the Trump administration’s lawsuit seeking to knock down a series of California immigration laws, delivering a major blow to the Justice Department’s efforts to crack down on so-called sanctuary states.
U.S. District Judge John Mendez tossed out the part of the lawsuit seeking to invalidate Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation between local and state law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement. He also dismissed an effort to block another law — Assembly Bill 103 — which allows the California attorney general to review and report on immigrant detention facilities.
Mendez also tossed out part of the lawsuit against Assembly Bill 405, which sought to limit private employers’ cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Mendez’s dismissals mean that California will be able to continue limiting its cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In dismissing the Justice Department’s case against the two laws, Mendez rejected the Trump administration’s argument that only the federal government has the final say on immigration enforcement and regulation under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.
“[T]he Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders,” Mendez wrote.
The dismissals came days after Mendez rejected the Trump administration’s request for a preliminary injunction to block the laws while the case played out in court.
The Justice Department first brought the lawsuit against California in March, arguing that the sanctuary laws effectively hindered federal efforts to enforce immigration policies.
But Mendez rejected that argument, writing in his rejection of the Trump administration’s injunction request last week that “refusing to help is not the same as impeding.”
California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, whose office is charged with defending the state against the lawsuit, celebrated the dismissals on Monday, saying that it upheld California’s right to determine how best to protect its residents’ privacy and security.
“Today’s decision is a victory for our State’s ability to safeguard the privacy, safety, and constitutional rights of all of our people,” he said in a statement. “Though the Trump Administration may continue to attack a state like California and its ability to make its own laws, we will continue to protect our constitutional authority to protect our residents and the rule of law.”
A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately respond to The Hill’s request for comment.
*************************************
My question: When are Federal Judges going to start holding Sessions and his ethically challenged gang of scofflaw lawyers from the DOJ in contempt and referring them for bar disciplinary proceedings for continuously abusing their offices by burdening the Federal Courts with meritless, largely frivolous litigation? Even worse, the litigation is driven by racism — an inherently objectionable basis!
PWS
07-09-18