United States v. State of California
921 F.3d 865
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- California enacted three statutes to limit state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement: AB 450 (employer notice and limits on employer consent/reverification), AB 103 (Attorney General inspections/reviews of facilities housing civil immigration detainees), and SB 54 (limits on local/state cooperation and information-sharing with federal immigration authorities).
- The United States sued under the Supremacy Clause, seeking a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the statutes; the district court granted injunctive relief in part and denied it in part.
- The Ninth Circuit reviewed the denial of most injunction requests for abuse of discretion, reviewing legal rulings de novo.
- The panel affirmed the district court as to AB 450’s employee-notice provisions and most of SB 54, holding no likely Supremacy Clause or preemption victory for the United States on those claims.
- The panel affirmed AB 103 provisions that duplicated existing California inspection regimes but held that Cal. Gov’t Code § 12532(b)(1)(C) (review of circumstances surrounding apprehension/transfer) discriminates against and burdens the federal government and thus violates intergovernmental immunity; it reversed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to that provision and remanded for reconsideration of equitable factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| AB 450 — Intergovernmental immunity and preemption (employee-notice provisions) | AB 450 uniquely burdens federal immigration inspections and conflicts with federal inspection scheme | AB 450 regulates employer–employee relations, not federal operations; notices are incidental and duplicative of state protections | Court: Affirmed denial of injunction — employee-notice provisions do not discriminate against or obstruct federal activity and are not preempted |
| AB 103 — Intergovernmental immunity (inspections of facilities housing federal detainees) | AB 103 imposes unique burdens on federal contractors/federal detention operations, discriminating against the U.S. | California: Most review duties duplicate existing state inspection schemes; Attorney General’s review is consistent with state police powers and contract terms | Court: Reversed as to §12532(b)(1)(C) (circumstances of apprehension/transfer) — discriminatory burden invalid; affirmed as to provisions duplicative of state inspections |
| AB 103 — Obstacle preemption | Even non-discriminatory inspection regime would obstruct federal detention/remove operations and contract terms | State inspection authority over in-state facilities is presumptively valid absent clear congressional intent to preempt; contracts contemplate state law compliance | Court: No obstacle preemption for duplicative inspection provisions; preemption not shown for non-discriminatory parts |
| SB 54 — Obstacle preemption, intergovernmental immunity, and §1373 conflict (information-sharing and transfer rules) | SB 54 prevents practical federal enforcement (e.g., judicial-warrant requirement for transfers; bans on release-date and personal info), conflicting with federal immigration enforcement and §1373 | California: SB 54 exercises state police powers and anticommandeering; it allows sharing immigration-status info and §1373 properly reads to reach immigration-status (not all release/presence data) | Court: Affirmed denial of injunction — SB 54 is not preempted; anticommandeering/Tenth Amendment permits state refusal to assist; §1373 does not clearly reach release-date/personal-info prohibitions |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (federal supremacy in immigration; preemption framework)
- Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (anticommandeering; limits on federal direction of state officials)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (functional approach to intergovernmental immunity)
- Dawson v. Steager, 139 S. Ct. 698 (rejecting discriminatory-tax exceptions; discussed as supporting no de minimis exception)
- Goodyear Atomic Corp. v. Miller, 486 U.S. 174 (federal-contractor treatment under intergovernmental immunity)
- M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (foundational principle that states cannot burden federal operations)
- Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (anticommandeering reaffirmed; limits on Congress directing state legislative action)
- Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141 (distinguishing information-only regulation of states from commandeering)