Filed Date: March 6, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
The United States federal government filed this suit on March 6, 2018 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, challenging California's "sanctuary city" state laws. This lawsuit comes after a series of lawsuits filed by California jurisdictions challenging the federal government's sanctuary city policies, which deny federal funding to jurisdictions that impede the federal government's immigration policies. For more information on those cases, see the the Clearinghouse Special Collection page.
This suit challenged three California laws in particular: (1) the Immigrant Worker Protection Act ("AB 450") that prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal officials without a judicial warrant or subpoena for purposes of immigration enforcement, (2) Assembly Bill 103 ("AB 103") that requires the state attorney general to investigate federal immigration detention facilities and processes, and (3) Senate Bill 54 ("SB 54") that limits local law enforcement from providing information about or transferring individuals subject to federal immigration custody to federal enforcement. The U.S. argued that the three laws "reflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration law," that the federal law preempted the state laws, and that the federal government had "preeminent authority" regarding immigration. The U.S. argued that California therefore violated the Supremacy Clause and that the Supremacy Clause rendered the state laws invalid. The U.S. sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
The same day, the U.S. moved for preliminary injunction. It sought to enjoin the implementation of these provisions within the three California laws. Meanwhile, a series of entities filed amici briefs and California moved to dismiss the case on May 4, 2018. A hearing on both motions was held on June 28.
On July 5, 2018, Judge Mendez granted in part and denied in part the motion for preliminary injunction, holding that "AB 103, SB 54, and the employee notice provision of AB 450 are permissible exercises of California’s sovereign power," but that the other provisions of AB 450 "impermissibly infringed on the sovereignty of the United States." As to AB 103, the court found that there was no indication "Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders," that AB 103 did not otherwise conflict with federal law, and that its burden on detention facilities is minimal since it did not impose any substantive requirements upon detention facilities but rather merely requires the detention facility to allow for access to review it. The court upheld AB 450's requirement that employers provide notice to their employees of any upcoming I-9 inspection but struck down under the supremacy clause the provisions prohibiting employers from verifying employment eligibility when federal law did not so require and from consenting to let immigration enforcement agents enter nonpublic labor areas to access, review, or obtain employee records. Finally, the court held that SB 54 did not conflict with federal law requiring information sharing, that the federal law was further potentially unconstitutional, and that California merely refusing to help federal law enforcement was different from impermissibly impeding federal law enforcement. 314 F.Supp.3d 1077.
On July 9, 2018, Judge Mendez granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss for the reasons stated above. The court dismissed the government's supremacy clause claim against AB 103, its claim against AB 450's notice provision, and its supremacy clause claim against SB 54. The court maintained the government's claims against AB 450's consent, access, and reverification provisions. 2018 WL 3361055. The U.S. immediately appealed the two decisions to the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
The Ninth Circuit issued its decision on April 18, 2019. 921 F.3d 865. The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's denial in large part of the government's motion for a preliminary injunction. First, the court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to AB 450, agreeing with Judge Mendez that it neither burdens the federal government nor conflicts with federal activities. Next, the court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction with respect to those provisions of AB 103 that simply duplicate inspection requirements mandated by California law. However, the court concluded that one subsection of AB 103, which requires examination of the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of immigration detainees, "discriminates against and impermissibly burdens the federal government, and so is unlawful under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity." With respect to SB 54, the court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction, agreeing with Judge Mendez that any obstruction caused by the law is consistent with the State's prerogatives under the 10th Amendment and anti-commandeering rule. It also found that SB 54's information-sharing restrictions did not conflict with federal law. The court then remanded for reconsideration of the equitable factors relevant to the question of whether to issue a preliminary injunction as applied to AB 103.
The U.S. filed a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court requesting review. Back in the district court, Judge Mendez stayed the proceedings pending the Supreme Court’s decision on certiorari. On June 15, 2020, the Supreme Court denied certiorari. 141 S.Ct. 124. Judge Mendez lifted the stay and the parties began briefing on whether to issue a preliminary injunction as applied to AB 103. The defendants also filed a motion to dissolve the existing injunction. Oral arguments were set for January 2021, but after the election of President Joseph Biden, the district court continued hearing on the motions. It asked the U.S. to inform the court if the U.S. after review by the Biden Administration, planned to continue pursuing this case.
As of February 2021, the case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Virginia Weeks (3/9/2018)
Virginia Weeks (8/21/2018)
Sichun Liu (3/8/2019)
Sam Kulhanek (8/11/2020)
Emily Kempa (3/8/2021)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6327062/parties/united-states-v-state-of-california/
Hurwitz, Andrew David (Arizona)
Mendez, John A. (California)
Newman, Kendall J (California)
Smith, Milan Dale Jr. (California)
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (California)
Bingham, Lauren Crowell (District of Columbia)
Darrow, Joseph A. (District of Columbia)
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
Genova, Francesca (District of Columbia)
Gray, Kathryne M. (District of Columbia)
Hurwitz, Andrew David (Arizona)
Mendez, John A. (California)
Newman, Kendall J (California)
Smith, Milan Dale Jr. (California)
Watford, Paul Jeffrey (California)
Bingham, Lauren Crowell (District of Columbia)
Darrow, Joseph A. (District of Columbia)
Flentje, August E. (District of Columbia)
Genova, Francesca (District of Columbia)
Gray, Kathryne M. (District of Columbia)
Peachey, William Charles (District of Columbia)
Press, Joshua S. (District of Columbia)
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia)
Reuveni, Erez (District of Columbia)
Scott, McGregor W. (California)
Shelledy, David (California)
Chuang, Christine (California)
Hakl, Anthony R. III (California)
Melton, Cherokee Dawn−Marie (California)
Onyeagbako, Maureen C. (California)
Phillips, Bradley S. (California)
Sherman, Lee Isaac (California)
Alikhan, Loren L. (District of Columbia)
Almadani, Monica Marie-Ramirez (California)
Amdur, Spencer E. W. (California)
Axelrod, Julie B. (District of Columbia)
Babbitt, Christopher Edmunds (District of Columbia)
Badlani, Chirag (Illinois)
Balderas, Hector (New Mexico)
Bansal, Jessica Karp (California)
Bee, Maria (California)
Benbrook, Bradley A. (California)
Bender, Robyn R. (District of Columbia)
Bergeron, Claire M. (District of Columbia)
Bernstein, Erin Brianna (California)
Blackwood, Eileen M. (Vermont)
Bondi, Pamela Jo (Florida)
Bronson, Kristin M. (Colorado)
Bryant, Phil (Mississippi)
Calia, Kevin A. (California)
Carr, Christopher M. (Georgia)
Carroll, Catherine M.A. (District of Columbia)
Carter, Margaret L. (California)
Chan, Angela (California)
Cooper, Jon (Tennessee)
Coursolle, Abigail K. (California)
Curtin, Timothy R. (New York)
Davies, Jamison (New York)
Davis, James E. (Texas)
Denn, Matthew P. (Delaware)
DeWine, Michael (Ohio)
Doseck, Barbara J. (Ohio)
Eisenberg, Sara J. (California)
Espiritu, Nicholas David (California)
Ferguson, Robert W. (Washington)
Flynn, Ronald P. (California)
Foxx, Kimberly M. (Illinois)
Freeman, Steven M. (New York)
Garlick, Melissa (New York)
Gelernt, Lee (New York)
Geltzer, Joshua A. (District of Columbia)
Gill, Kathleen E. (New York)
Glowa, Nancy E. (Massachusetts)
Golden, John Wisner (California)
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)
Grewal, Gurbir S. (New Jersey)
Grusin, Sarah (California)
Guizar, Monica T. (California)
Hacker, David J. (Texas)
Hajec, Christopher J. (District of Columbia)
Hale, Michael A. (California)
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California)
Herrera, Dennis J. (California)
Hill, Curtis T. Jr. (Indiana)
Hilton, Yvonne (Pennsylvania)
Holder, Eric H. Jr. (District of Columbia)
Holguín, Carlos R. (California)
Holmes, Peter S. (Washington)
Holtzman, Jonathan V. (California)
Hudson, Esra Acikalin (California)
Hunter, Mike (Oklahoma)
Iorlano, Diana (California)
Jadwat, Omar C. (New York)
Jepsen, George (Connecticut)
Joseph, Lawrence J (District of Columbia)
Kaufman, Michael Bryan (California)
Kaufman [inactive], Michael (California)
Keller, Scott A. (Texas)
Kelly, William G. Jr. (New York)
Kozina, Vladimir F. (California)
Landry, Jeff (Louisiana)
Lavine, Aaron Olshina (New York)
Laxalt, Adam Paul (Nevada)
Lederer, Caryn C (Illinois)
Lee, Elaine Y. (California)
Leung , Jade H. (California)
Madigan, Lisa (Illinois)
Marshall, Steven T. (Alabama)
Mass, Julia Harumi (California)
Mateer, Jeffrey C. (Texas)
May, Michael P. (Wisconsin)
McCord, Mary B. (District of Columbia)
McLean, Joseph (California)
McPherson, Malia (California)
Menz, Sheila E. (District of Columbia)
Miller, Steven C. (California)
Mitchell, Sarah F. (California)
Morosco, Taylor Cross (District of Columbia)
Morrisey, Patrick (West Virginia)
Nannery, Valerie M (District of Columbia)
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California)
Nordon, Michael G. (California)
Parker, Barbara J (California)
Pasquarella, Jennifer (California)
Paxton, Ken (Texas)
Perkins, Martha Jane (North Carolina)
Perrin, Robert Ward (California)
Peterson, Doug (Nebraska)
Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois)
Pratt, Marcel S. (Pennsylvania)
Racine, Karl A. (District of Columbia)
Reaves, John Daniel (District of Columbia)
Reeve, Tracy (Oregon)
Rehberg, Sarah R. (District of Columbia)
Rice, Daniel B. (District of Columbia)
Rosenblum, Ellen F. (Oregon)
Ross, Linda Margaret (California)
Roth, Stuart J. (District of Columbia)
Rutledge, Leslie (Arkansas)
Salceda, Angelica H. (California)
Sandick, Harry (New York)
Scheidegger, Kent S. (California)
Schey, Peter A. (California)
Schmidt, Derek (Kansas)
Schuette, Bill (Michigan)
Schwartz, Michael D. (New York)
Segal, Susan L. (Minnesota)
Sekulow, Jay Alan (District of Columbia)
Serrano, Javier (California)
Shallman, Daniel N. (California)
Siskel, Edward N. (Illinois)
Starr, Brantley David (Texas)
Surtees, Geoffrey R. (Michigan)
Suvor, Daniel R (California)
Suzuki, Russell A. (Hawaii)
Thomas, Gregory L. (Indiana)
Trice, Laura Susan (California)
Trivedi, Harit Upendra (California)
Tully, Daniel Joseph (California)
Turpin, Rachel B. (Washington)
Vakili, Bardis (California)
Vakili [inactive], Bardis (California)
Venezia, Mark S. (District of Columbia)
Ventresca, Ivano Michael (District of Columbia)
Weissglass, Jonathan (California)
Whalley, Jana (California)
White, Edward L. III (Michigan)
Wilcox, Dale L. (District of Columbia)
Williams, James Robyzad (California)
Wilson, Alan (South Carolina)
Wofsy, Cody H. (California)
Wright, Francis X. Jr. (Massachusetts)
Ziegler, Donna Raylene (California)
Zimmerman, Erik (Michigan)
Zionts, David M. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6327062/united-states-v-state-of-california/
Last updated May 11, 2022, 8 p.m.
State / Territory: California
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 6, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
United States federal government
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Mixed
Nature of Relief:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General:
Placement in detention facilities
Discrimination-basis:
Immigration/Border: