Judge grills federal and state government lawyers over ‘sanctuary’ laws

SACRAMENTO -- U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez had tough questions for both sides Wednesday during a heated hearing in the federal government's lawsuit to invalidate three so-called sanctuary state laws passed by the Legislature last year.

Federal attorneys are seeking a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of the three laws while the case is pending. The California Department of Justice filed a motion last month to dismiss the case.

Mendez indicated during the hearing he would likely seek more briefs from the opposing sides in U.S. v. California, 18-CV00490, (E.D. Cal., filed March 6, 2018). He was appointed by President George W. Bush in 2008.

But the judge appeared skeptical of the federal government's argument that the laws interfered with immigration enforcement. Mendez also hinted he may be sympathetic to the state's position that each law is severable, opening the door to striking down only portions of one or more of them.

"You can't mandate cooperation," Mendez said, echoing the state's anti-commandeering arguments. "The state is saying, 'We're done with you; we're not going to cooperate.'"

The laws in question are: SB 54, which limits local law enforcement's cooperation with ICE; AB 103, allowing state inspections of immigration detention facilities in California; and AB 450, which prevents employers from allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement in "non-public" work areas without a warrant.

Chad A. Readler, acting assistant U.S. attorney general for the civil division, repeatedly sought to show each law constituted illegal state interference in the federal government's enforcement of immigration laws.

"The case law is plentiful that there can't be a conflict between state law and federal law," Readler said. "The United States has robust authority over immigration."

Mendez may have been most sympathetic to the federal government's arguments around AB 450, saying: "The state really puts the employer between a rock and hard place."

He noted employers could face sanctions from the federal government if they do not cooperate with ICE and fines from the state if they do. Mendez also grilled state attorneys about whether the law barred ICE agents in all circumstances.

"AB 450 does not regulate any agents seeking to enter for non-immigration purposes," replied Deputy Attorney General Christine Chuang.

Mendez then read the statute back to her, noting it applies to "immigration agents," without listing an exception for ICE agents engaged in some other role. He posited a scenario where several kinds of federal agents show up at a work site and only ICE agents are excluded.

But he appeared less swayed by federal attorneys' arguments that AB 103 illegally interferes with federal immigration enforcement.

"The state has not ceded its investigative authority over these state or private facilities just because they have contracted with the federal government," Chuang argued.

"The state was pretty clear why it passed these laws," Readler said. "It was to interfere with federal immigration enforcement."

Readler said this interpretation was based in part on "statements of legislators who voted for the bill."

But Mendez said those did not constitute a valid legal standard, saying gathering information to write a report would be difficult to construe as interference.

"In my view, more transparency is better when you're dealing with the government, not less," Mendez said.

Readler also repeatedly argued the inspections take time and resources from the federal government. But state attorneys argued it was an incidental cost and staff time and that did not legally constitute interference.

The judge also appeared sympathetic to California's argument that he could strike down portions of each law while leaving the rest intact. All three bills contain severability clauses, though Readler repeatedly sought to argue that the provisions of each bill were too intertwined to be effectively severable.

The day-long hearing was so packed in the morning the court had to open up a second courtroom for spillover. Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, the author of SB 54 and a candidate for U.S. Senate in the fall election, was among those in attendance.

De Leon was among a group of Democrats this week asking Gov. Jerry Brown to call back 400 California National Guard troops he made available to help patrol the border in response to separations of parents and children who illegally crossed the U.S.-Mexico border.

Meanwhile, a large crowd outside protested the Trump administration's immigration policies and faced off against a much smaller group of pro-Trump protesters. This confrontation appeared to be largely over the administration's policy of separating children from parents at the border although this policy is not at issue in the case.