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
No comments:
Post a Comment