United States v. California
314 F. Supp. 3d 1077
E.D. Cal.2018Background
- The United States sued California seeking a preliminary injunction against provisions of AB 103, AB 450, and SB 54, arguing they are preempted by federal immigration law and violate the Supremacy Clause, intergovernmental immunity, and/or the Tenth Amendment.
- AB 103 requires the California Attorney General to review and report on conditions at county, local, and private detention facilities housing noncitizens and mandates access for those reviews.
- AB 450 (as applied to private employers) prohibits employers from consenting to immigration agents' entry into nonpublic work areas or access to employee records, requires employers to notify employees of I‑9 inspections within 72 hours, and restricts reverification of current employees except as required by federal law.
- SB 54 ("sanctuary" statute) restricts California law enforcement from using resources to assist federal immigration enforcement, limits sharing of release dates and personal information, and bars transfers to immigration authorities except under narrow circumstances (e.g., judicial warrant or specified convictions); it contains a savings clause for 8 U.S.C. § 1373 communications.
- The court applied Supremacy Clause preemption doctrines (especially obstacle/conflict preemption), intergovernmental immunity, and Tenth Amendment/anticommandeering principles in assessing likelihood of success on the merits and whether to grant a mandatory preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB 103 (AG review of detention facilities and access to detainee info) | Federal immigration authority over detention is exclusive; state review and compelled access conflict with federal scheme and 8 C.F.R. §236.6 privacy rule | AB 103 is a non‑substantive transparency review within state police powers; federal contracts contemplate compliance with state law; §236.6 limits public disclosure, not inter‑governmental sharing | Denied injunction: Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; no facial conflict with §236.6 and law is a permissible state oversight exercise |
| AB 450 — prohibitions on employer consent to site entry/records access | Bars a historically relied‑upon investigative method; conflicts with IRCA and civil investigative authority | Protects worker privacy and workplace rights; entry still permitted by warrant/subpoena; IRCA does not clearly preempt state labor rules | Granted injunction (as to private employers): Plaintiffs likely to succeed under intergovernmental immunity (statute impermissibly penalizes those who voluntarily deal with federal government) |
| AB 450 — employee notice requirement for I‑9 inspections | Notice will thwart federal investigations | Notice simply extends existing employer notice to employees; helps cure paperwork defects; falls within state labor regulation | Denied injunction: Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; provision not preempted or barred by intergovernmental immunity |
| AB 450 — prohibition on reverification of current employees | Conflicts with IRCA employer duties (continuing obligation to avoid knowingly employing unauthorized workers) | Savings clause allows compliance where federal law requires reverification; protects employees from intrusive rechecks | Granted injunction (as to private employers): Plaintiff likely to succeed because prohibition frustrates Congress’s verification/enforcement scheme |
| SB 54 — limits on state law enforcement sharing info, release dates, addresses and transfers | Conflicts with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and the INA’s detention/transfer objectives; frustrates removal/detention scheme | Protects state police powers, community policing, resources, and liability concerns; §1373’s scope is limited and SB 54 contains a §1373 savings clause | Denied injunction: Plaintiff unlikely to succeed; court reads §1373 narrowly (not covering addresses/release dates), finds SB 54 not preempted and Tenth Amendment/anticommandeering principles support state control over its law enforcement cooperation |
Key Cases Cited
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (clear‑statement rule required before Congress displaces traditional state powers)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (federal supremacy in immigration but presumption against preemption in areas of traditional state regulation)
- DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (not every state law concerning aliens is preempted; state police powers persist)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997) (anticommandeering: Congress may not commandeer state officers to administer federal programs)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992) (Congress cannot compel states to enact or enforce federal regulatory programs)
- Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) (anticommandeering extends to prohibitions on state legislative action; Tenth Amendment limitations)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standards for preliminary injunctions)
- Leslie Miller, Inc. v. Arkansas, 352 U.S. 187 (1956) (state licensing that interferes with federal procurement invalid)
- Davis v. Michigan Department of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803 (1989) (intergovernmental immunity protects those who deal with the Federal Government against discriminatory state measures)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (2000) (federal regulation of state database disclosure did not violate Tenth Amendment)