8th Amendment Violation , Cruel and Unusual Punishment

I wanted to speak and talk about the Eighth Amendment today. As you may know the United States is the leading nation in the world for the largest segment of the population is incarcerated. Prison became big business for private corporations and state and federal entities alike. Which is no better known as " Mass Incarceration ". The ratio of someone having a loved one or a friend that is locked up for whatever reason is staggering for being the nation with the most freedoms. Seems a bit backwards? Well if your asking yourself that your right. It is.
Now I'm all for " Do the crime , Do the time. " And that basically spells " be responsible for your actions ". But during your incarceration in jail or prison you have to be constantly aware of your surroundings and worry about being attacked by another inmate.And trust me its not so far from being the truth because there will be individuals that have to prove themselves aor working up the food chain within a prison gang.
Well its this attack that is suppose to be prevented so ones 8th amendment is not violated. Also the 8th amendment stems from unsanitary living conditions. Or tainted food during the incarceration. There is a whole library on what violations can arise from a 8th amendment.


The United States Constitution States: The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government from imposing excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments. This amendment was adopted on December 15, 1791

There are many lawsuits currently and also have been many in the past regarding the 8th. Each one is unique within itself. There is no cookie cutter format. But when you plan to pursue a 8th Amendment there are elements to consider before you file or walk into a court room. I'm hoping this blog provides the ample information that you would need to win.

Family break down

         As promised I am continuing the project of how moms are cutting off their children contact with their biological fathers.A drastic effect says psychologists Penelope Leach. Being bitter with Dad many moms will turn to denying inaction with Dad and denying the child of important developmental interaction.
         Many mothers are commonly bitter towards the Father and look for the opportunity to lash anyway they are able. Even knowing this technique of battle within a divorce most divorcing adults need to remember that their children need both parental figures.
         Most research shows that children of divorce will lie to the one parent ( the mother usually ) so the parent hears what they want even though the child genuinely loves both. This trend is something that is believed to be used to divide and disfranchise the American family unit. And encourages parents to be involved in litigation and evil actions where the only victims in the end are the children.
         Many experts strongly urge co-parenting and negotiations between both parents and avoid using the children as pawns in a game.The child's major developmental stages is between 16months to five years old. A missing father could have dire consequences in the long term. So parents need to ask themselves are they being selfish and only doing right by themselves or are they considering their childrens long term welfare.

      What a parent can do to reverse developmental delays of children of Divorce.

• Keep phone contact with the former spouse. Email , phone , text , video chat.
• Snail mail letters. United States Postal Service. Writing a letter to someone is a lost tradition and was the mode of communication prior to the age of computers.
• Scheduled visits. Plan day trips or evening visits. Always encourage your child to have contact with your spouse.
• Split holidays so the child gets to share the important holidays with both parents separately.

         This is not a exhaustive list of techniques for both parents to be involved. But it does help provide a solution instead of just pointing out the problem.

Dad's being robbed.

I will be doing some posts that hit close to home about " Dad's being robbed " of the opportunity of being father's. I will explore this modern day scam that has happened all to frequently in every court room across this great nation. Now we will reserve some justifiable actions and denying some Dad's for a violent past or have clearly shown they deserve the treatment. But I will mainly focus on those fathers who have been robbed. And used as a easy pay check and treated plainly as sperm donors and were lied to.

And this subject hits home dearly because I'm a father who has been robbed. Three times over. But I will mostly share my possible third child's situation with you because for me its the most blatantly obvious miscarriage of justice how mothers utilize the law to " defame a would be dad " and or " completely destroy " a dad with her family's assistance at that. I will be using the freedom of speech and freedom of press and freedom of expression which are inalienable rights given to every American. Some of you will find this offensive and grossly written. But it is reality for a lot of fathers and there is just not enough voices out there to help defend good dad's being robbed.

Trumps border conundrum.

As many already know the United States and Mexican International border has been opened and closed then opened and closed again due to the migrant wave of Hondurans. Said to have left the countries of  Central America including Honduras. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2018/11/invasion-honduran-migrant-says-20000-will-march-through-vehicle-lanes-at-border-says-applying-for-asylum-is-waste-of-time/ But this is a continuous border battle and legal battle for Trump. The halls of congress have dragged their feet to find any solution or to help the southwest of this " over a decade " problem. Trump ran on the campaign promise of building a wall yet now he is President the legal hurdles to keep that promise are proving to be a challenge. He has many on the left that are playing obstructionist games and stalling if not straight up refusing to fund the " Build the Wall " promise. Trump has threatened to shut not only the border but also the government if he doesn't receive the funding. He understands the American public wants a comprehensive border security and then also migrants request a streamlined path to citizenship.It has been absolutely clear that the migrant caravan have been notified the current approach is not going to allow them to get Asylum by pushing over the international border into the United States. Although Asylum applications will be accepted and reviewed on a case by case basis.
 https://www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/the-mixer/on-immigration-congress-drags-its-feet-white-house-doubles-down

Yesterday there was a incident at the San Ysidro. The migrant wave intended to storm and overwhelm the border. Trump has ordered the military to the border as we all know and finally our military is being used in a very good way. Protecting the homeland. I bet those soldiers actually feel vindicated being able to serve at home.

The migrants have now stated that there is 20,000 on the way and with the mass of those coming and the migrants already present they are going to attempt to overwhelm the border port of entry. Even though this is ill advised but there are several lawyer activists that are coaching the migrants on what to say and do once upon arrival at the international border. Lawyer activists have actually been with the migrant exodus since its inception.

Some say the migrant caravan was initially started to help sway the 2018 mid terms and that the all and famous George Soro's is paying the migrants. Well we all have seen the video of migrants being paid.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KspFTWt7SZ0  This is a pretty damning video. Whomever is paying is unknown although this video shows the migrants receiving someones cash.

This is not likely to change or remedy itself anytime soon. With more migrants on the way and President Trump threatening to shut the entire border down is definitely historical. We will attempt to update this  thread as the situation continues to massively blow up.

Recent events with radicals violate ARS.

A recently conflict with a radical organization has led to grounds for a civil claim. But I wanted to take the time to educate those who follow. FYI and food for thought. The following is regarding Arizona specifically. In the future I may share statutes from other states. Libel and slander are commonly hard to prove especially with the age of the internet and the lines of free speech are grey. But even then certain aspects can be pursued in such a civil matter. But it is also a test of patience because ultimately it becomes a he said / she said ordeal. This is not a exhaustive study on Libel or slander. Nor are we attempting to provide legal advice.

Arizona defamation law defines a defamatory statement as one that must be “false and bring the defamed person into disrepute, contempt, or ridicule, or impeach her honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation.” Godbehere v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 162 Ariz. 335, 341 (Ariz. 1989); Turner v. Devlin, 174 Ariz. 201, 203-04 (1993).

It’s also worth noting in the realm of Arizona defamation law, that Arizona courts frequently look to the Second Restatement of Torts, viewing it as a persuasive authority. Sanchez v. Coxon, 175 Ariz. 93, 95 (1993).

For Arizona plaintiffs to win in their libel or slander actions, Arizona defamation law requires they meet the five (5) following:

 Defamation Elements

For Arizona libel and slander plaintiffs to succeed in their claim, they must have:

• A false statement concerning the plaintiff;
• The statement was defamatory;
• The statement was published to a third-party;
• The requisite fault on the part of the defendant, &
• The plaintiff suffered damage as a result of the statement. Morris v. Warner, 160 Ariz. 55, 62 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Arizona Felons don't pursue Voting Rights.

               In Arizona there was a report that many convicted felons who returned to the civilian populace rarely pursue gaining their Constitutional Rights. In Arizona also first time offenders who pay restitution and fines at the end of their mandatory sentences automatically receive their all their rights but the 2nd Amendment. To receive their gun rights they need to petition the sentencing judge with whom imposed the incarceration sentence. And even then depending on the nature of the crime or crimes committed will determine whether that judge will restore all rights including 2nd amendment.
               This has been a controversial subject for those who live abiding by the law day in and day out. Many believe that felons should not get the opportunity to vote again as a permanent penalty for committing any crime. And it is said it rewards the felon and negates the punishment. But they don't realize that a felon , even when incarcerated still maintains civil rights. This takes us to the scholarship level and debate whether inmates incarcerated deserve those civil rights when they abused or took those fundamental rights from their victims. In some instances you would believe that those rights were fortified also. But everyone is human and my two cents is that we cannot allow our institutions become vast wastelands of human right abuses. Everyday there is already many unreported circumstances that never see the light of day.
                Our Prison Complex is a mecca for drugs , violence , sexual abuse , mental abuse in the likes many those outside either deny acknowledging or utterly ignore all together. It is a world and society with its own rules to begin with. Those who have been forced to pay their debt to society and those who guard those forced to be there are all part of a underworld , a Dark World.
                 And from this Incarcerated world someone who returns to society literally receives a culture shock. Especially those who served long sentences for their crimes. And they feel that they have been tossed away already so reintegration to the real world is like a mute legal point. Some felons feel society didn't care or listen then and why bother attempt to be a part now. The system automatically disenfranchises them in the beginning and some felons rather leave it that way.
                In Maricopa County , Arizona 70% ( American Probation and Parole Assoc ) https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=162397 of the population is not allowed to vote and on Lifetime Probation or Parole. Very staggering. And many other city populations are the same. For being a military man you would ask what does that have to do with anything? Well if you want to control the vote and get what you want politically or in the way of policy one way to achieve this is by disenfranchising a large portion of the population to ensure a " easy win ".
                I'm sure this will always be a ongoing subject of discussion. And policy and the Standard Operation Procedure of the legal system here in Arizona is likely not subject to change.

Prison Reform Bill 2018

There is a bill going through the halls of Washington D.C. to maybe pass a Prison Reform Bill that even President Trump has supported greatly. Helping Prisoners in our land that leads the world on having the biggest percentage of its population  incarcerated could just be serving lip service. Its widely known that our Prison Industry is one of the leading industries in America and its cheap labor which follow closely behind. In some ways I still take a cynical point of view that how much do the politicians really care to reform a industry which brings them huge dividends.

Coined the " First Step Act " signals a step in the right direction but will only have a impact on Federal Prisoners. Which is a small percentage of the Prison Complex. There is a turning tide though because I believe this piece of legislation and the Democrats desperate need for votes the state Florida gave the " Right to Vote " back to a estimated 1 million felons , is a sign of change. May not be the most genuine change but in the least it is still change.

H.R. 5682 has already been introduced and passed the House of Representatives. President Trump is urging those of the Senate to vote in favor of the bill promising that it will get signed by him in turn making it law. The bill touts a new Risk and Assessment of inmates that are eligible for release. With the intent of reintroducing them to the civilian world and have a better success rate and not return to incarceration. It is far to common now how most prisons seem to have a revolving door. Many aspects effect a felon once released to the " wild " civilian world. It becomes a uphill struggle and will face great criticism , racism , stereotypical hate for being a felon. Specific inmates will only be considered by this legislation.

Visit https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/5682/text#toc-H33DDD00EE0864E959D53167D5D5545D2

But within the bill thus far is included some protections for female inmates that are pregnant. And you may ask why is this even a issue? Also how many pregnant female inmates are being abused within the Federal Prison Complex. Either way it is very concerning to say the least. But the bill changes the SOP ( standard operating procedure ) for dealing with pregnant female inmates. It states when and when not they are to be shackled before and during the pregnancy , when the child is being born and after the pregnancy to assist with postpartum. So this is a good part of the legislation but its very concerning that it took up to 2018 for BOP ( Bureau of Prisons ) to be told to treat pregnant female inmates better. Another signal how America's Prison Complex is notoriously out of control.

We will be monitoring this legislation and will report any changes. Now that the 2018 midterms are over with Washington politics can either step up and do their job or have more of the same " do for themselves , ignore the voters.

Plead guilty and get out of jail. Violation of your rights.

           California Senate Bill 10 was passed in September but comes with the possibility of violating not so affluent citizens rights. California has switched to what is called Financial Bail. Instead of posting a defendant's bond due to their risk to society if released from jail , now judges will release defendant's accordingly to their ability to pay bail. Which for a majority of California will leave many defendant's still locked up till trial.
           The ABA , American Bar Association filed a amicus brief opposing the decision and urging California lawmakers to remain with the state's bail schedule. Amicus Brief . A recent court case may directly affect the new Bail Reform Bill. A case involving habeas corpus petition filed by Kenneth Humphrey , who was charged with theft and making threat in May of 2017 and was unable to post bond of $600,000.00. In January , California's 1st Dist. Court of Appeals ruled against the new Bail Reform Bill stating it was unconstitutional. Mainly because it does not allow the judges to take in consideration of defendant's individual circumstances. More on this to come folks.

Kavanaugh allegations have destroyed the SCOTUS and Due Process.

The Democrats and the progressive state has taken the highest office in the land and drug it through the deepest , darkest , disgusting gutter there ever could be. With Dr. Ford's allegations with no evidence , no witnesses , no time , no place they have accused a upstanding , District Court Judge to a point that his life is forever altered. Along with his family's. They have set a precedence that anyone wanting to be on the Supreme Court will also go through such a disaster of a process they won't attempt to do it. Who in their right mind would submit themselves to this. Why would a self respecting judge challenge such a undertaking.

But they have set a new public standard I believe. That no one is immune to allegations of sexual misconduct or worse and then to instantly be convicted and circumvent the Due Process. If a judge who is a nominee to the SCOTUS can be questioned and basically found guilty without due process then what saves John Q public of allegations. This empowers many if not millions of those who would make false allegations against any male in our nation , and destroy their lives. Due Process must be respected and followed and otherwise anarchy will reign. Well we should prepare for anarchy. Like anarchy reigns in the streets during protests in our nation now its in the highest office of the land.

Mob mentality the new politics for the left.

https://wapo.st/2xNqThK?tid=ssTed Cruz and wife shouted out of D.C. restaurant over his support for Kavanaugh_tw&utm_term=.e1f14d158d40

A travesty of modern day politics results to mob mentality. Its not just about support of Kavanaugh its the lefts agenda. Given that any sexual allegations should always be investigated and taken seriously , but if we all think back to our high school years as teenagers , hormones raging. We were all guilty of being teens.

Hurricane Florence Assistance

Well we ventured out to assist those in need. We went down and helped the rescue efforts with the aftermath of the hurricane. There was massive record flooding and many homes were under several feet of water. The unfortunate part is that several of the homes had flooded the year before. EMS and Law Enforcement worked tiredlessly to answer a record number of 911 calls. Although there were mandatory evacuations several residents could not afford to leave and some did not have the ability.

Several Animal Rescue groups heeded the call to respond and save many animals. Several animal make shift shelters popped up where there was no flooding. Many in volunteers driveways. At times we do see the best of our  communities when disaster strikes.

We here at Legal Beagle Paralegal PLLC continue to send our prayers to those effected by the hurricane and hope for a fast recovery.

�� LIVE: President Donald Trump MASSIVE Rally in Evansville, Indiana - Au...

President Donald Trump speaks on Free Speech and more.

      President Trump speaks on Free Speech at Evansville , Indiana in support of republican senate canidate Mike Braun. But drops several bombs on the dysfunctional government. Democrats , FBI and the leftist media. And also speaks in support of Immigration Customs Enforcement ( ICE ). And how the Democrats are calling themselves the " Resistance ".
      President Trump somewhat sticks to the speech but for the most part and gives a " True American Speech ". Also threatens the FBI if they don't fix the internal issues that he , as President will get involved. Being a military veteran , when I was in the military when the higher officer staff say they are going to get involved into a issue of the enlisted personnel we knew heads were going to roll. But  hearing President Trump threaten to get involved in the problems of the FBI , you know heads are rolling right after he said it in his speech. Phones began to ring and many began to worry. Because its not just higher staff , it is the " Boss " saying it. The President. He also speaks on the issues with the internet giants Google , Yahoo and the leftist bias against him as President. Seeming to be a orchestrated indusrty plot , President Trump says the internet giants are fixing the meta data on search engines.
       So kudos to President Trump.

Federal Court Order for Presidents Twitter account.

            A federal judge Buchwald ruled in May that individuals' free speech rights are violated if the President blocks them on Twitter. Of the 41 users who reported being blocked to the Justice Department, 20 of those twitter users were unblocked yesterday.
            Sending the First Amendment into deep stormy waters. Not only it sends the Presidents twitter into these waters but every Americans. Can citizens block others to silence their free speech? This does put the " Public " online community policies into question. And not just Twitter. Many more that allow blocking of other users just to silence them.
            The judges dissent in short form is as follows. It is not a violation of a persons First Amendments rights of Twitter users to be blocked by the President because they can't read his tweets. But! It is a violation of Constitutional Right by being blocked prevents them from responding to the Presidents tweet. The Constitutional issue is they are being blocked so they can't reply. 
            Now Judge Buchwald in her decision stated that she would not mandate the Predsient to unblock the Twitter users but by ruling the blocking of users to silence them she hopes the President abides by the ruling and in the end abide by the law. 

Trump warns Google , Facebook , Twitter.

The Constitution of the United States 1st Amendment.

                   Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

                 A slippery slope we could be on the verge of embarking on. Given the left seems to be " Intolerant " and " Bat Shit Crazy " making threats to surpress civil liberties does not justify such a warning. Now we all know the media is not only " Story Driven " But also Politically. And they have no issues picking sides publically. But I guarantee anyone " You don't want the coming intrusion of government that is coming ". We will later recollect the days when government did not regulate what you said. And had full freedom of speech and expression. Please think about this on your next post on Facebook or twitter.

The threat of Sharia Law

              The world has had two types of law throughout the ages. And for sometime now we are presented with a dangerous third type of law. Since the start of man one type of law that was implemented was Ruler's Law. Either a dictator or king would rule the empire with acceptable force with the population believing he was given the right to rule through divine right.
              The other type of law or second is People's Law. Under People's law the people create the law by how they live. But still with the faith of the divine / God. And not even force directed by God would occur because God loves man his creation. A good example of People's law is Ancient Israel. They lived by biblical law. It was their lifestyle.
               Now our threat to the systems of law we know and live by is Sharia Law. Not to say it is not a legit system of religious law but it is People's Law and Ruler's Law combined. Sharia Law ( straight path ) came about in the 7th century and was given by Archangel Gabriel to Prophet Mohammed. The Quran is the Muslim version of the christian bible is to Christians. The Quran is a series of revelations given by Prophet Mohammed. But Sharia Law promotes divine orders of force. Force inflicted upon believers and infidels.

Q 9:5 - Slay unbelievers where ye shall find them. Lie and wait for them and use stratagem of war. Unless they repent and pray regularly and practice charity , open the way for them.

                This is the threat Sharia Law imposes on Christians and other practises of faith. It calls for violence and eradication of infidels. Sharia Law also calls for Dawa. This is " call to Islam ". Sharia rejects the fundamentals of American / British society and values. Having ones own freedom of thought is seen as a violation to Sharia Law. And one important aspect is in American society that everyone is created equal. Sharia Law does not agree to this important aspect. Woman are covered and limited to extremes. Non- Muslims are looked down upon or seen as second class.

               We should be aware of this threat and I plan to continue this ongoing study of Sharia Law for my blog. To inform those who don't know I hope to show the truth. And to also hopefully dispel any misconceptions regarding this subject.

Sharia Law Invasion

We ugre everyone to watch this.<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FMichelleMalkinCRTV%2Fvideos%2F479187835834371%2F&show_text=0&width=560" width="560" height="315" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allowFullScreen="true"></iframe>

A awesome article on legal writing.

           I wanted to share this article about legal writing because the " Art of Plain Language " is very much just that. An art. Many legal professionals fail to express themselves so the reader can understand what they are reading on the first read. Many try to throw legalese in the mix or try to insert $20.00 words thinking it will prove they went to law school. And most important many lawyers " Dress to impress " the judge. And in most cases and judges schedules , it is more time consuming and will frustrate the judge when he has to slow down to understand and or READ the documents over again. So it's just best to get it right the first time and not risk making those involved frustrated. In my experience I often find it amazing how even a lawyers' paralegal fails to spell check or spell your name correctly.

            So I read this very good article about the importance of Plain Language in your legal writing. And I find it not only crucial but it will be where you ultimately will make your money as a legal professional. " Write it so the reader understands the first time he or she reads. "

https://www.michbar.org/file/barjournal/article/documents/pdf4article3120.pdf

Hon. Gerald Lebovits, Legal Writing, Michagan Bar Journal, Plain Language Committee

Where did the Fourth Amendment come from?

Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 149 , Be mindful of the " Third Party Doctrine " whereas a individual  has a reduced expectation of privacy in information knowingly shared with another. The Fourth Amendment has drawn these lines but with increased social media and cell phone technology these lines often turn blury and grey for law enforcement and not so in favor for those being watched or investigated.

No warrant? No cell phone. Supreme Court makes Ruling.

CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT 

No. 16–402. Argued November 29, 2017—Decided June 22, 2018 

Law Enforcement can no longer obtain information regarding your whereabouts or cell phone data without a warrant. What is typically called " Pinging " , cops can't just intrude on your privacy. A 5-4 Majority decision protects American's 4th Amendment. Although this Supreme decision will not protect those who decide to really wreak havoc on society by threatening to bomb someone or something and or child abduction and active shooter incidents. So tip to the would be criminals , leave the cell phone home if you intend to do something stupid and get arrested.

Preliminary Injuction for California 2018 Federal Lawsuit

Due to the length of the document if one wishes to inquire I direct you to this link.

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1041436/download

You may have to cut and paste. But to save time and the readers patience I will spare you all by posting the link.

Justice Departments Complaint against California

The Justice Department is seeking both declaratory and injunctive relief based upon the enactment and implementation of certain provisions of three California laws—Assembly Bill 450 (AB 450); Senate Bill 54 (SB 54); and Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103)—which intentionally obstruct and discriminate against the enforcement of federal immigration law. The complaint contends that the laws in question are preempted by federal law and impermissibly target the Federal Government, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. As a result, the Justice Department is seeking to permanently enjoin these state statutes, which are contrary to federal law and interfere with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their lawful duties. In addition, the Justice Department is continuing to review other related California enactments.

The complaint, accompanying motion for a preliminary injunction, and declarations from Department of Homeland Security and Department of State officials—filed last evening in the Eastern District of California—spell out in detail the extent to which each of these laws have interfered, and will continue to interfere, with federal law enforcement efforts.

AB 450 prohibits private employers from voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials—including officials conducting worksite enforcement efforts and other enforcement operations. It also requires that private employers notify employees in advance of a potential worksite enforcement inspection—despite clear federal law that has been on the books for approximately three decades that has no such requirements. An April 22, 2017, report on AB 450 compiled by the California State Assembly’s Committee on Judiciary states that the law is designed to frustrate “an expected increase in federal immigration enforcement actions.” California has demonstrated its intent to enforce this law: on Jan. 18, 2018, California Attorney General Becerra issued a warning to employers in the state that his office would “prosecute those who violate [AB 450] by voluntarily cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) efforts.” Additionally, failure to comply with AB 450 could result in a fine for the business owner ranging from $2,000-$10,000. California employers are thus caught between what many may feel is a civic duty to cooperate with the enforcement of federal law, and a state government that penalizes such lawful cooperation.

SB 54 restricts state and local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens who are in their custody. These criminal aliens are subject to removal from the United States under federal immigration law, and SB 54 interferes with federal immigration authorities’ ability to carry out their responsibilities under federal law. SB 54 also violates 8 USC 1373, a law enacted by Congress, which promotes information sharing related to immigration enforcement. The state law also prohibits the actual transfer of criminal aliens to federal custody, which creates a dangerous operating environment for ICE agents executing arrests in non-custodial settings. In a declaration provided to the Court, ICE Deputy Director Thomas Homan states that these “at-large arrests. . .unquestionably involve a greater possibility of the use of force or violence by the target . . . and have greater access to weapons, exposing officers, the public, and the alien to greater risk of harm.” 

Remarkably, with this law California attempts to shield from federal law enforcement removable criminal aliens who have committed crimes in the state of California and across the country. In doing so, California is releasing onto its streets those removable criminal aliens who have already shown a willingness to engage in criminal activity—as evidenced by their state or local detention for violating state law—and who therefore are most likely to commit crimes in the future.

AB 103 imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the Constitution. California does not impose such an inspection and review scheme on other similar detention facilities that do not house civil immigration detainees—in other words, this is a special review regime that applies only to facilities that house civil immigration detainees. This different treatment shows that California is seeking to regulate the federal government, which is not permitted under well-established Supreme Court precedent.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump Administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions today told law enforcement officers attending the California Peace Officers Association’s 26th Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day, referencing AB 450, SB 54, and AB 103. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe that we are going to win.”

“Our duty at the Department of Homeland Security is to enforce and uphold the nation’s security laws as passed by the U.S. Congress and signed by the President,” said Secretary Kirstjen M. Nielsen for the Department of Homeland Security.  “California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland. I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”

1. In this action, the United States seeks a declaration invalidating and preliminarily and permanently enjoining the enforcement of certain provisions of California law. These provisions are preempted by federal law and impermissibly discriminate against the United States, and therefore violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. 2. The United States has undoubted, preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress. California has no authority to enforce laws that obstruct or otherwise conflict with, or discriminate against, federal immigration enforcement efforts. 3. This lawsuit challenges three California statutes that reflect a deliberate effort by California to obstruct the United States’ enforcement of federal immigration law, to regulate private entities that seek to cooperate with federal authorities consistent with their obligations under federal law, and to impede consultation and communication between federal and state law enforcement officials. 4. The first statute, the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”), prohibits private employers in California from voluntarily cooperating with federal officials who seek information relevant to immigration enforcement that occurs in places of employment. 5. The second statute, Assembly Bill 103 (“AB 103”), creates an inspection and review scheme that requires the Attorney General of California to investigate the immigration enforcement efforts of federal agents. 6. The third statute, Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”), which includes the “California Values Act,” limits the ability of state and local law enforcement officers to provide the United States with basic information about individuals who are in their custody and are subject to federal immigration custody, or to transfer such individuals to federal immigration custody. 7. The provisions of state law at issue have the purpose and effect of making it more difficult for federal immigration officers to carry out their responsibilities in California. The Supremacy Clause does not allow California to obstruct the United States’ ability to enforce laws that Congress has enacted or to take actions entrusted to it by the Constitution. Accordingly, the provisions at issue here are invalid.

                                                         JURISDICTION AND VENUE

8. The Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345. 9. Venue is proper in this jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because Defendants reside within the Eastern District of California and because a substantial part of the acts or omissions giving rise to this Complaint arose from events occurring within this judicial district. 10. The Court has the authority to provide the relief requested under the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2, as well as 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651, 2201, and 2202, and its inherent equitable powers.

                                                                          PARTIES

11. Plaintiff, the United States, regulates immigration under its constitutional and statutory authorities, and it enforces the immigration laws through its Executive agencies, including the Departments of Justice, State, and Labor, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) including its component agencies U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement (ICE), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). 12. Defendant State of California is a state of the United States. 13. Defendant Edmund Gerald Brown Jr. is the Governor of the State of California and is being sued in his official capacity. 14. Defendant Xavier Becerra is Attorney General for the State of California and is being sued in his official capacity.

                                                       FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW

15. The Constitution affords Congress the power to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 4, and to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations,” U.S. Const., art. I § 8, cl. 3, and affords the President of the United States the authority to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U.S. Const., art. II § 3. 16. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution mandates that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” U.S. Const., art. VI, cl. 2. Thus, a state enactment is invalid if it “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress,” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941), or if it “discriminate[s] against the United States or those with whom it deals,” South Carolina v. Baker, 485 U.S. 505, 523 (1988). 17. Based on its enumerated powers and its constitutional power as a sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations, the United States has broad authority to establish immigration laws, the execution of which the States cannot obstruct or discriminate against. See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394-95 (2012); accord North Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 4 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 5 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 435 (1990) (plurality); id. at 444-47 (Scalia, J., concurring). 18. Congress has exercised its authority to make laws governing the entry, presence, status, and removal of aliens within the United States by enacting various provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat 3359, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a et seq., and other laws regulating immigration. 19. These laws codify the Executive Branch’s authority to inspect, investigate, arrest, detain, and remove aliens who are suspected of being, or found to be, unlawfully in the United States. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1225, 1226, 1227, 1228, 1231, 1357. 20. Congress has also codified basic principles of cooperation and comity between state and local authorities and the United States. For example, federal law contemplates that removable aliens in state custody who have been convicted of state or local offenses will generally serve their state or local criminal sentences before being subject to removal, but that they will be taken into federal custody upon the expiration of their state prison terms. See id. §§ 1226(c), 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii), (a)(4). 21. “Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 411. Congress has therefore directed that a federal, state, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, DHS “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); see 8 U.S.C. § 1644 (same); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10)(A) (providing for state and local “communicat[ion] with [DHS] regarding the immigration status of any Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 5 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 6 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 individual, including reporting knowledge that a particular alien is not lawfully present in the United States”). Congress also authorized states and localities “to cooperate with the [Secretary] in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States.” Id. § 1357(g)(10)(B). 22. Federal law also explicitly recognizes the United States’ authority to “arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal,” including the lease or rental of state, local, and private facilities. See 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g); accord 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(11). 23. Federal regulation provides that “[n]o person, including any state or local government entity or any privately operated detention facility, that houses, maintains, provides services to, or otherwise holds any detainee on behalf of [DHS] (whether by contract or otherwise), and no other person who by virtue of any official or contractual relationship with such person obtains information relating to any detainee, shall disclose or otherwise permit to be made public the name of, or other information relating to, such detainee. Such information shall be under the control of [DHS] and shall be subject to public disclosure only pursuant to the provisions of applicable federal laws, regulations and executive orders.” 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. 24. Congress, through IRCA, has also enacted a “comprehensive framework for combating the employment of illegal aliens.” Arizona, 567 U.S. at 404. IRCA makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ aliens without appropriate work authorization. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2). It also requires every employer to verify the employment authorization status of prospective employees. See id. § 1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). DHS enforces these requirements through criminal Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 6 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 7 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 penalties and an escalating series of civil penalties tied to the number of times an employer has violated the provisions. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(e)(4), (f). 25. As a means of enforcing IRCA’s criminal and civil penalties, Congress established a nationally uniform inspection process whereby employers are required to retain documentary evidence of authorized employment of aliens, and to permit federal investigative officers to inspect such documents. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(b), (e)(2)(A). 26. DHS, through ICE and CBP, performs a significant portion of its law enforcement activities in California. In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) apprehended 20,201 aliens in California alone, or roughly 14% of the aliens apprehended nationwide. Thus far in 2018, ICE ERO has apprehended 8,588 aliens in California, or roughly 14% of the aliens apprehended nationwide. Of those aliens apprehended nationwide in 2016, 2017, and thus far in 2018, 92%, 90%, and 87% respectively, were criminal aliens. In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE ERO booked a total of 323,591 aliens into custody, 41,880 of whom were detained in California. And CBP is responsible for enforcing the immigration laws at ports of entry and areas near the border in California, including apprehending recent entrants with criminal convictions or who are national security concerns, and patrolling the border for narcotics.

                                                           CALIFORNIA PROVISIONS

Restrictions on Cooperation with Workplace Immigration Enforcement (AB 450) 27. On October 5, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law the “Immigrant Worker Protection Act,” Assembly Bill 450 (AB 450), effective January 1, 2018 (Exhibit 1). Through AB 450, California regulates how private employers in California must respond to federal efforts to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws through investigations in Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 7 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 8 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 places of employment. 28. AB 450 added Section 7285.1(a) of the California Government Code, which provides that an employer or its agent “shall not provide voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to enter any nonpublic areas of a place of labor,” unless “the immigration enforcement agent provides a judicial warrant” or consent is “otherwise required by federal law.” 29. Section 7285.2(a)(1) similarly prohibits an employer or its agent from “provid[ing] voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent to access, review, or obtain the employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant.” 30. Section 7285.2(a)(2) contains an exception for certain documents for which the United States has provided a “Notice of Inspection,” Cal. Gov’t Code § 7285.2(a)(2). AB 450 added provisions to the California Labor Code that establish new requirements employers must satisfy before allowing ICE to conduct the inspection process directed by federal law. AB 450 requires employers to notify employees and their authorized representatives of upcoming inspections of employment records “within 72 hours of receiving notice of the inspection.” Cal. Lab. Code § 90.2(a)(1). It also requires employers to provide employees and their authorized representatives, within 72 hours, with copies of written immigration agency notices providing results of inspections. Id. § 90.2(b)(1). 31. All these provisions are subject to a schedule of civil penalties “of two thousand dollars ($2,000) up to five thousand dollars ($5,000) for a first violation and five thousand dollars ($5,000) up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) for each subsequent violation.” Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7285.1(b), 7285.2(b); Cal. Lab. Code § 90.2(c). 32. AB 450 added Section 1019.2(a) of the California Labor Code, which provides that an Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 8 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 9 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 employer or its agent “shall not reverify the employment eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by Section 1324a(b) of Title 8 of the United States Code.” Violators are subject to “a civil penalty of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000).” Cal. Lab. Code § 1019.2(b). 33. Upon information and belief, California law does not prohibit employers from voluntarily complying with requests from any other federal or California entities for information or inspection, or compel employers to provide notice to their employees of other efforts to collect information. 34. In Fiscal Year 2017, ICE conducted approximately 1,300 worksite inspections authorized by IRCA across the country, including approximately 230 in California. If conditions are appropriate, any of those investigations could lead to an inspection with the consent of the employer, and often employers are very willing to provide consent in order to alleviate and address concerns that arise during the inspection process. In addition such inspections with the consent of the employer are critical to investigating cross border smuggling of people, narcotics, and terrorism. 35. These provisions, individually and collectively, have the purpose and effect of interfering with the enforcement of the INA and IRCA’s prohibition on working without authorization. California has no lawful interest in protecting unauthorized workers from detection or in shielding employers who have violated federal immigration law from penalty. These provisions, as applied to private employers, violate the Supremacy Clause by, among other things, constituting an obstacle to the United States’ enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against federal immigration enforcement.

 Inspection and Review of Immigration Detention Facilities (AB 103)36. Under longstanding California law, “local detention facilities” are subject to biennial inspections concerning health and safety, fire suppression preplanning, compliance with training and funding requirements, and the types and availability of visitation. Cal. Penal Code § 6031.1(a). The law defines “local detention facilities” as any city, county, or regional facility in which individuals are confined for more than 24 hours, and includes private facilities (though it excludes certain facilities for parolees, treatment and restitution facilities, community correctional centers, and work furlough programs). Id. § 6031.4. 37. On June 27, 2017, California enacted Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103) (Exhibit 2). Section 12 of AB 103 added Section 12532 to the California Government Code. 38. Rather than subject facilities housing civil immigration detainees to the inspection scheme deemed sufficient for other detention facilities, the statute imposes a new set of requirements specific to facilities housing immigration detainees. In particular, Section 12532(a) requires the California Attorney General or his designee “to engage in reviews of county, local, or private locked detention facilities in which noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings in California.” 39. The statute is not limited to an inspection of facilities. The law also requires the California Attorney General or his designee to examine the “due process provided” to civil immigration detainees, and “the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility.” Cal. Gov’t Code § 12532(b). Section 12532(c) instructs that the California Attorney General or his designee “shall be provided all necessary access for the observations necessary to effectuate reviews required pursuant to this section, including, but not limited to, access to detainees, officials, personnel, and records.” Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 10 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 11 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 40. DHS, through ICE, has entered into contracts for detention services with private entities, intergovernmental services agreements (IGSAs) with county, city, or local government entities in California, and intergovernmental agreements (IGAs) with the U.S. Marshals service that provide ICE with guaranteed housing for ICE detainees as needed. ICE currently has twenty active contracts, IGSAs or IGAs, in California and regularly uses nine detention facilities in California to house civil immigration detainees in ICE custody. 41. Information obtained or developed as a result of an agreement with the detention facility are federal records under the control of ICE for purposes of disclosure and are subject to disclosure only pursuant to applicable federal information laws, regulations, and policies, including but not limited to the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552 et seq., and 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. 42. Three of these facilities, the Adelanto Correctional Facility, the Imperial Regional Detention Facility, and the Mesa Verde Detention Facility are dedicated facilities that exclusively house immigration detainees. In Fiscal Year 2018, these three facilities have had an average daily population of 1,685, 680, and 384 detainees pending the outcome of their administrative immigration cases, respectively. 43. The remaining facilities with IGSAs house both immigration detainees and local detainees and are used on an as-needed basis. In Fiscal Year 2018, average daily detainee populations at the as-needed facilities have ranged between a high of 956 at Otay Mesa Detention and a low of 171 at Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center. 44. DHS, through ICE, houses civil immigration detainees at the Otay Mesa Detention Center in California, a private detention facility that CoreCivic owns and operates. Otay Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 11 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 12 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Mesa has an average daily population of around 1,000 detainees awaiting removal or a decision on removal. 45. Upon information and belief, on November 16, 2017, Defendant Becerra initiated via letter a request to inspect various ICE detention facilities, including Imperial, Adelanto, Mesa Verde, the Theo Lacy Facility, the James A. Musick Facility, Yuba County Jail, Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center, Contra Costa West County Detention Facility, and Otay Mesa, as well as a request to inspect DHS documents concerning aliens detained in these locations. 46. Upon information and belief, Yuba, Rio Cosumnes, Contra Costa, Theo Lacy, and James A. Musick, have been inspected since the law’s passage 47. On January 24, 2018, Defendant Becerra via letter informed Imperial, Adelanto, Mesa Verde, and Otay Mesa that he intended to inspect those facilities on either February 26, 2018 or March 5, 2018, and required access to documents and other material subject to ICE control and deemed privileged under federal law and regulation. See 8 C.F.R. § 236.6. 48. Upon information and belief, California does not require any local detention facility to comply with section 12532’s heightened inspections regime when it houses detainees for other federal or California entities. AB 103’s requirements apply only when local detention facilities house federal civil immigration detainees. 49. AB 103 thus requires the California Attorney General to investigate the law enforcement efforts of federal agents engaged in apprehending and transferring aliens, to assess the “due process” provided to those aliens and the “circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to the facility,” and to assess the law enforcement decisions of personnel Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 12 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 13 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 under contract to the United States, as well as records of unspecified scope. The statute thus commands an improper, significant intrusion into federal enforcement of the immigration laws. California has no lawful interest in investigating federal law enforcement efforts. These provisions violate the Supremacy Clause by, among other things, constituting an obstacle to the United States’ enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against the United States. Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation with Federal Officials (SB 54) 50. On October 5, 2017, the Governor signed into law the Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), which includes the “California Values Act,” effective January 1, 2018 (Exhibit 3). 51. SB 54 limits state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in a number of ways. New Section 7284.6 prohibits state and local law enforcement officials, other than employees of the California Department of Corrections, from, among other things: “[p]roviding information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information,” Cal Gov’t Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(C); providing “personal information,” including (but not limited to) an individual’s home address or work address, id. § 7284.6(a)(1)(D); and “[t]ransfer[ring] an individual to immigration authorities,” id. § 7284.6(a)(4). 52. These provisions contain limited exceptions. State and local law enforcement may share with the United States “information regarding a person’s release date” or respond “to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information,” but only where an individual subject to such information sharing has been convicted of a limited subset crimes, or where the information is available to the public. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7282.5(a), 7284.6(a)(1)(C). Personal information also may be shared only if it is available to the Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 13 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 14 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 public. Id. § 7284.6(a)(1)(D). State and local law enforcement agencies may “[t]ransfer an individual to immigration authorities” only if the United States presents a “judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination,” or the individual in question has been convicted of one of a limited set of enumerated felonies or other serious crimes. Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 7284.6(a)(4), 7282.5(a). 53. The limited subset of criminal violations does not match federal law governing what may serve as the predicate for inadmissibility or removability, including listing a set of crimes more narrow than those that render an alien removable. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182(a)(2), 1227(a)(2). And it does not match the set of criminal offenses that require the federal government to detain such aliens upon their release from state or local custody. Id. § 1226(c). 54. Upon information and belief, California law does not impose these restrictions on other forms of information sharing on other topics, nor does it restrict transfers of individuals to other law enforcement agencies in this way. 55. These provisions impermissibly prohibit even the most basic cooperation with federal officials. As noted above, federal law contemplates that criminal aliens in state custody who may be subject to removal will complete their state or local sentences first before being detained by the United States, but that federal immigration detention for immigration proceedings or for removal will begin upon the alien’s release from state custody. 8 U.S.C. § 1226(c); § 1231(a)(4). Additionally, federal law contemplates that DHS will be able to inspect all applicants for admission, and take all appropriate action against those found to be inadmissible to the United States, even those that may have been transferred to the custody of state and local law enforcement pending such a state Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 14 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 15 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and local prosecution. See 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1225(b)(2); 8 C.F.R. § 235.2. And, to facilitate coordination between state and local officials and the United States, Congress expressly prohibited any federal, state, or local government entity or official from prohibiting, or in any way restricting, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, DHS “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of an individual.” 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); see also 8 U.S.C. § 1644. Although SB 54 purports to be consistent with section 1373, see Cal. Gov’t Code § 7284.6(e), sections 7284.6(a)(1)(C) and (D) explicitly forbid the sharing of information covered by 8 U.S.C. § 1373. 56. The transfer restriction additionally requires that the United States present a “judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination” before the state or locality may transfer an alien to DHS for appropriate immigration enforcement action. This provision also conflicts with federal law, which establishes a system of civil administrative warrants as the basis for immigration arrest and removal, and does not require or contemplate use of a judicial warrant for civil immigration enforcement. See 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a), 1231(a). 57. Upon information and belief, since January 1, 2018, law enforcement agencies in California, as defined by SB 54, will not communicate to DHS the release date or home address of aliens DHS has reason to believe are removable from the United States, or transfer such aliens to DHS custody, even where DHS presents a Congressionallyauthorized civil administrative warrant of arrest or removal, see 8 U.S.C. § 1226(a); 1231(a), or has transferred those aliens to local law enforcement in the first instance to permit California or its subdivisions to criminally prosecute them for a state crime. 58. By restricting basic information sharing and by barring the transfer to DHS of aliens in Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 15 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 16 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 state or local custody upon their release through the means provided for by federal law, SB 54 requires federal immigration officers to either engage in difficult and dangerous efforts to re-arrest aliens who were previously in state custody, endangering immigration officers, the alien at issue, and others who may be nearby, or to determine that it is not appropriate to transfer an alien to state or local custody in the first place, in order to comply with their mission to enforce the immigration laws. California has no lawful interest in assisting removable aliens to evade federal law enforcement. 59. These provisions violate the Supremacy Clause by, among other things, constituting an obstacle to the United States’ enforcement of the immigration laws and discriminating against federal immigration enforcement, as well as (with respect to the informationsharing restrictions) expressly violating 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a).

                                                                  CLAIM FOR RELIEF

  COUNT ONE – Restrictions on Cooperation with Workplace Immigration Enforcement 60. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26, and 27 through 35 of the Complaint as if fully stated herein. 61. Sections 7285.1, and 7285.2 of the California Government Code and Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 of the California Labor Code, violate the Supremacy Clause as applied to private employers, and are invalid.

COUNT TWO – Inspection and Review of Detention Facilities 62. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26, and 36 through 49 of the Complaint as if fully stated herein. 63. Section 12532 of the California Government Code violates the Supremacy Clause, and is invalid.

 COUNT THREE – Restrictions on State and Local Cooperation 64. Plaintiff hereby incorporates paragraphs 1 through 26, and 50 through 59 of the Complaint as if fully stated herein. 65. Sections 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D) and 7284.6(a)(4) of the California Government Code violate the Supremacy Clause and 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a), and are invalid.

                                                               PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the United States respectfully requests the following relief: 1. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that Sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 of the California Government Code, and Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 of the California Labor Code violate the Supremacy Clause as applied to private employers and are therefore invalid; 2. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that Section 12532 of the California Government Code violates the Supremacy Clause and is therefore invalid; 3. That this Court enter a judgment declaring that Sections 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D) and 7284.6(a)(4) of the California Government Code violate the Supremacy Clause and are therefore invalid; 4. That this Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit Defendants as well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing against private employers sections 7285.1 and 7285.2 of the California Government Code, and Sections 90.2 and 1019.2 of the California Labor Code; 5. That this Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit Defendants, as well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing Section 12532 of the California Government Code; 6. That this Court issue preliminary and permanent injunctions that prohibit Defendants as Case 2:18-at-00264 Document 1 Filed 03/06/18 Page 17 of 18 Complaint of the United States - 18 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 well as their successors, agents, and employees, from enforcing Sections 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D) and 7284.6(a)(4) of the California Government Code; 7. That this Court award the United States its costs in this action; and 8. That this Court award any other relief it deems just and proper.

 DATED: March 6, 2018

CHAD A. READLER 

Acting Assistant Attorney General

MCGREGOR SCOTT 

United States Attorney

AUGUST FLENTJE 

Special Counsel 

WILLIAM C. PEACHEY 

Director 

/s/ Erez Reuveni EREZ REUVENI 

Assistant Director 

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 

Office of Immigration Litigation 

P.O. Box 868, Ben Franklin Station 

Washington, DC 20044 

Telephone: (202) 307-4293 

Fax: (202) 616-8202 

E-mail: Erez.R.Reuveni@usdoj.gov

DAVID SHELLEDY 

Civil Chief, Assistant 

United States Attorney

LAUREN C. BINGHAM

 JOSEPH A. DARROW 

JOSHUA S. PRESS 

Trial Attorneys 

Attorneys for Plaintiff

Justice Department Sues California

The Justice Department sued the State of California over its  sanctuary laws, what will be a legal showdown in which both sides appear willing for battle.

Filed late Tuesday, petitions that California overstepped its authority in passing three statutes which are intended to ignore and supersede federal law.