Tactical maneuvers under way by state, federal government in ‘sanctuary’ cases

SACRAMENTO -- U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions' lawsuit against California turns one week old Tuesday. But legal maneuvering is already well under way.

Both sides have already filed motions that could have resulted in a change of venue for U.S. v. California, 18-CN-00490 (E.D. Cal., filed March 6, 2018), currently assigned to the Sacramento courtroom of U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez.

Meanwhile, court filings show California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has added several deputies to his legal team for the case -- moves that may signal how he plans to approach the federal government's challenge.

All of this happened in the six days between Sessions' brief visit to Sacramento to announce the suit with the now-famous line, "California, we have a problem," and President Donald J. Trump's visit to San Diego Tuesday morning -- his first as president -- to view border wall prototypes.

In a Monday morning press call held "in anticipation" of Trump's visit, Becerra again laid out his case against the "preemption" arguments Sessions made in his complaint.

"California respects the Constitution, federal law and the federal government's prerogatives in the areas the Constitution leaves to the federal government," Becerra said. "We hope President Trump also recognizes that the Constitution left many duties to the states, and those we plan to continue to enforce under the Tenth Amendment."

Sessions is seeking to block three state laws passed last year: SB 54, which limits local law enforcement's interactions with Immigration and Customs Enforcement; AB 103, a public safety omnibus bill that includes provisions allowing the state to inspect immigration detention facilities; and AB 450, a bill that requires employers to demand a warrant from ICE before allowing them to inspect "non-public" areas of a work site.

On Friday, Becerra's side signaled that they were preparing to file a motion to relate the administration's case to one they filed against Sessions last year, California v. Sessions, 17-CV04701 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 14, 2017).

If successful, this could move the case from California's Eastern District to the Northern District -- or in terms of reputation, from the state's most conservative federal venue to perhaps its most liberal.

In a response filed Monday, Eastern District U.S. Attorney McGregor W. Scott, opposed the change.

"It is remarkable that the State of California would seek to delay this matter primarily so that it can avoid litigating in its state capital," Scott wrote, adding, "Any overlap between the cases is minimal."

On Friday, Eastern District Presiding Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill rejected a related case motion from Scott's office, saying only that it was "inappropriate."

Scott had identified an existing challenge to AB 450, also known as the Immigrant Worker Protections Act, in another case. Brosnan v. Becerra, 18-CV00322 (E.D. Cal., filed Feb. 12, 2018).

The plaintiff, John Brosnan, listed no counsel in his complaint. Instead, he identified himself as a private employer in the food sector in El Sobrante who has found himself "placed in the middle of a struggle between state and federal authorities."

Brosnan cited Becerra's Jan. 18 warning to employers that he would prosecute those who violated AB 450. Businesses in his industry were often raided by ICE due to a "high percentage of illegal immigrants" among employees, Brosnan's complaint said.

He went on to claim AB 450 is "vague," as were attempts by Becerra's office to answer his questions. As a result, he claimed, he is potentially subject to sanction by one side for complying with rules set by the other.

As in Sessions' complaint, Brosnan claims AB 450 violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. He did not return multiple calls and an email seeking comment.

Scott did not specifically argue to move his case. However, when courts do relate cases, the matter often ends up in the court of the original case.

In this case, that would mean a move from Mendez to U.S. District Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Both are George W. Bush appointees, though England may have the more conservative reputation.

Meanwhile, court filings also show Becerra has tapped several high-profile deputies in the case. These include Satoshi Yanai, a supervising attorney general who is a former attorney with the U.S. Labor Department, and Lee I. Sherman, a deputy attorney general who has been active on multiple cases against the Trump administration.

The team also includes Anthony R. Hakl III, a deputy attorney general who unsuccessfully defended a lawsuit by the online movie database IMDB.com. The movie database challenged a California law that barred it from listing actors' ages.

The most notable addition to the team might be Christine Chuang, a deputy attorney general with the state Department of Justice's fledgling Bureau of Children's Justice. Originally created under Kamala D. Harris, the bureau is slated to get permanent funding for the first time under the current state budget.

Chuang's inclusion may signal that Becerra plans to argue blocking the laws could hurt children in California. Becerra's office did not return a call and email seeking comment for this story.