State loses bid to move DOJ sanctuary lawsuit to San Francisco

SACRAMENTO -- A federal judge in Sacramento rejected California's request to transfer U.S. Attorney Jeff Sessions' challenge to the state's illegal immigrant "sanctuary" laws.

State Attorney General Xavier Becerra had argued the case should be coupled with a lawsuit he filed against Sessions in San Francisco. Both cases seek to balance "the federal government's immigration powers and the State of California's powers under the 10th Amendment," Becerra argued.

U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez said Becerra was unable to show a sufficient connection between the two cases. The Eastern District case is U.S. v. California, 18-CV-00490-JAM-KJN (E.D. Cal., filed March 6, 2018). The Northern District case is California v. Sessions, 17-CV-04701-MEJ (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 14, 2017).

"Becerra and the case at bar have obvious differences," Mendez wrote. "Becerra concerns USDOJ grant conditions that implicate the Spending Clause and the APA [Administrative Procedures Act], which are not at issue in this litigation."

Mendez has scheduled a hearing on the motion to transfer for April 5, but instead decided it was "suitable for decision without oral argument." The federal government argues the three California laws violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause. SB 54 limits law enforcement cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. AB 103 allows the state to inspect immigration lockups. AB 450 requires employers to see a warrant before allowing ICE into "non-public" work areas.

The Northern District has been Becerra's preferred venue in the more than two dozen lawsuits he has filed against the U.S. government. His suit against Sessions challenges the federal government's attempt to withhold some law enforcement funds from what it deems sanctuary jurisdictions.

Becerra's complaint claims SB 54 complies with Section 1373 of the U.S. Code, which states a government official cannot restrict immigration authorities from determining a person's immigration status. Becerra argued the federal government is attempting to violate California's 10th Amendment right to determine how it spends law enforcement funds.

"The thrust of this lawsuit concerns the Supremacy Clause, which has not arisen in the Becerra case," Mendez wrote. "Apart from the potential conflict between SB 54 and Section 1373, the lawsuits present distinct legal questions, statutes, and factual circumstances to review and resolve."

Mendez also said that issues like convenience to the parties and access to justice were not significant factors for or against transfer. He also defended his venue against Becerra's argument that it was too overburdened with cases.

"Few districts can match the efficiency of the EDCA in resolving lawsuits despite the obvious need for additional judgeships," Mendez wrote.

The attorney general's office declined to provide a comment for this story.

Meanwhile, several entities supportive of Sessions' case have filled amicus briefs in . This includes a brief filed on Monday by the American Center for Law and Justice, a conservative legal organization run by President Donald Trump's personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow.

Sekulow's brief focused on AB 450, arguing it violates the Supremacy Clause.

"AB 450 imposes warrant and subpoena requirements upon federal immigration enforcement agents that are contrary to federal law, which permits voluntary consent," it noted.

The American Center for Law and Justice has filed amicus briefs in several other cases involving Trump around the country. This includes Trump v. Hawaii, 17-965 (U.S. 2018), a case challenging one of the president's executive orders limiting entry by people from six Muslim countries that are affected by terrorism. It is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The brief was filed by Vladimir F. Kozina, a partner with Mayall Hurley PC in Stockton. Kozina specializes in insurance and personal injury cases but has signed on to several briefs for the center in federal venues in California. He declined to comment for this story.

Eighteen states, all but two won by Trump, also filed an amicus brief on Monday.

Led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, it argues all three California laws are preempted under United States v. Arizona, 2012 DJDAR 10964. This was an Obama-era case in which the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Arizona's attempts to pass its own immigration laws.