{"id":22332,"date":"2019-12-18T18:31:18","date_gmt":"2019-12-18T23:31:18","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/?p=22332"},"modified":"2019-12-18T18:31:20","modified_gmt":"2019-12-18T23:31:20","slug":"supreme-court-sanctuary-policy-immigrationreform-com","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/12\/18\/supreme-court-sanctuary-policy-immigrationreform-com\/","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Could End Sanctuary Policies Nationwide"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p>The Supreme Court could soon decide the constitutionality of sanctuary policies. Before the Court now is a case that reviews the validity of California\u2019s sanctuary-state law, <a href=\"https:\/\/leginfo.legislature.ca.gov\/faces\/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB54\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">Senate Bill (SB) 54<\/a>, the so-called \u201cCalifornia Values Act.\u201d\u00a0 This law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating \u00a0with federal immigration authorities, placing illegal aliens above the rule of law at the expense of the safety of American citizens and legal immigrants.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/opa\/pr\/justice-department-files-preemption-lawsuit-against-state-california-stop-interference\" target=\"_blank\">sued California<\/a> on March 7, 2018, asking the federal district court for an injunction to block the state from enforcing SB 54.\u00a0 Numerous <a href=\"https:\/\/www.fairus.org\/legislation\/state-local-legislation\/californias-local-anti-sanctuary-leaders-welcomed-white-house\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">local governments and elected officials<\/a> across the state filed amicus (\u201cfriend of the court\u201d) briefs supporting DOJ.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>But Judge John Mendez <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.fairus.org\/legislation\/state-local-legislation\/federal-court-hands-mixed-mostly-bad-results-opponents\" target=\"_blank\">rejected DOJ\u2019s request<\/a>, saying that \u201crefusing to help is not the same as impeding\u201d and \u201c[s]tanding aside does not equate to standing in the way.\u201d The fact that the state law deliberately makes federal enforcement harder just didn\u2019t seem to matter. DOJ appealed the ruling, and unsurprisingly the notoriously liberal and often-reversed U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit <a href=\"https:\/\/www.foxnews.com\/politics\/ninth-circuit-rejects-most-of-white-house-bid-to-block-california-sanctuary-laws\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">upheld<\/a> Judge Mendez\u2019s order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>On October 22 of this year DOJ filed a <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/19\/19-532\/119897\/20191022192538521_California.Pet.10.22.19.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">petition<\/a> with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to review the case.\u00a0 The Supreme Court doesn\u2019t automatically have to decide to accept an appeal on the merits \u2013 it typically gets <a href=\"https:\/\/www.uscourts.gov\/about-federal-courts\/educational-resources\/about-educational-outreach\/activity-resources\/supreme-1\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">more than 7,000<\/a> such petitions a year, and only grants 100-150 of them.\u00a0 <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>DOJ\u2019s petition argues that the Supreme Court should take the\ncase and reverse the 9th Circuit because:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul><li>SB 54 conflicts with federal law and is therefore <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/preemption\" target=\"_blank\">preempted<\/a>;<\/li><li>SB 54 discriminates against the federal government and is therefore prohibited by the doctrine of <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com\/Intergovernmental+Immunity+Doctrine\" target=\"_blank\">\u201cintergovernmental immunity;\u201d<\/a><\/li><li>The information-sharing provisions of SB 54 are expressly preempted by a federal statute, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/uscode\/text\/8\/1373\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">8 U.S.C. \u00a7\u202f1373<\/a>, which says states may not restrict sharing information about immigration; and <\/li><li>The Tenth Amendment \u201canti-commandeering\u201d principle does not apply to sanctuary policies like SB 54, because immigration is an exclusive power of the federal government, so allowing states to interfere with it makes state law supreme over federal law, which is contrary to the Constitution\u2019s Supremacy Clause.<\/li><\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p>Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who represents DOJ before the Supreme Court, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/DocketPDF\/19\/19-532\/119897\/20191022192538521_California.Pet.10.22.19.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">stressed<\/a> that the practical consequences of California\u2019s obstruction are not theoretical.\u00a0 He stated that as a result of SB 54, criminal aliens evaded both detention and removal prescribed by Congress.\u00a0 Instead, these criminal aliens have been returned to the civilian population, where they are disproportionately likely to commit additional crimes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>The Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI) also <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"https:\/\/www.irli.org\/single-post\/2019\/11\/25\/Supreme-Court-to-End-Sanctuary-Policies\" target=\"_blank\">filed two amicus briefs<\/a> with the Supreme Court, supporting DOJ\u2019s petition that the Court should review the case.\u00a0 The <a rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\" href=\"http:\/\/immigrationreformlawinstitute.org\/Docs\/NSA_brief.pdf\" target=\"_blank\">first brief<\/a>, on behalf of the National Sheriffs\u2019 Association, focused on how \u201cthe Ninth Circuit misunderstood the Tenth Amendment, which only reserves the power to make a given law to the states if that power is not prohibited to the states by the Constitution,\u201d while the <a href=\"http:\/\/immigrationreformlawinstitute.org\/Docs\/Coalition_Br..pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">second brief<\/a>, which it brought on behalf of a coalition of California municipalities and elected officials, made the additional argument that \u201cSB 54 requires state officers to commit the federal crime of harboring illegal aliens by concealing their whereabouts from federal agents.\u201d\u00a0 Dale Wilcox, IRLI\u2019s Executive Director and General Counsel, explained in a press release:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>\u201cThe Constitution does not give\nstates power to interfere with federal law enforcement \u2026 By holding otherwise,\nthe Ninth Circuit endorsed not states\u2019 rights, but chaos. &nbsp;About half of the nation\u2019s population now\nlives in one form of sanctuary jurisdiction or another \u2026 That extraordinary\nsituation is not only a grave threat to Americans\u2019 safety, but a shocking\naffront to federal supremacy. &nbsp;We hope\nthe Supreme Court sees the need to end these vast non-enforcement zones by\nvindicating the clear text and structure of our Constitution.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>Between DOJ\u2019s and IRLI\u2019s briefs it is clear that sanctuary\npolicies turn federal supremacy and the entire American constitutional order completely\nupside-down.&nbsp; And they needlessly put countless\nvictims of crime at risk.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>While California has not yet filed its response to the petition, which is due <a href=\"https:\/\/www.supremecourt.gov\/search.aspx?filename=\/docket\/docketfiles\/html\/public\/19-532.html\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\" aria-label=\" (opens in a new tab)\">by December 23<\/a>, it can be expected to proclaim that the Tenth Amendment allows it to continue to undermine and interfere with federal immigration law. <\/p>\n\n\n\n<p>If the Supreme Court does agree to hear the case, the decision\nwould be issued by June 29, 2020, the end of the current Supreme Court session.\nFor the sake of the country and the rule of law, the Court should take the\ncase, reverse the lower courts, and make sanctuary policies history.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Supreme Court could soon decide the constitutionality of sanctuary policies. Before the Court now is a case that reviews the validity of California\u2019s sanctuary-state law, Senate Bill (SB) 54, the so-called \u201cCalifornia Values Act.\u201d\u00a0 This law prohibits state and local law enforcement from cooperating \u00a0with federal immigration authorities, placing illegal aliens above the rule<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/2019\/12\/18\/supreme-court-sanctuary-policy-immigrationreform-com\/\" title=\"Read More\">Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":64,"featured_media":12712,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0},"categories":[6],"tags":[1524,1188,1349,911],"yst_prominent_words":[7376,2249,2691,7377,3669,1943,1976,3057,2243,7378,2008,7375,2030,2159,3666,2059,7374,3588,3366,2242],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22332"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/64"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=22332"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22332\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":22333,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22332\/revisions\/22333"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/12712"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22332"},{"taxonomy":"yst_prominent_words","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.immigrationreform.com\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/yst_prominent_words?post=22332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}