Orange County judge clears rules state ‘sanctuary’ law unconstitutional for charter cities

A state "sanctuary" law is unconstitutional when applied to California's 100-plus charter cities, a superior court judge has ruled, likely clearing a path for local police forces to cooperate with federal immigration agents. Judge James L. Crandall of Orange County agreed Thursday with the City of Huntington Beach, which sued the state in April, that the California Values Act is unconstitutional because it intrudes on cities' rights to independently govern their police forces and general funds. City of Huntington Beach v. State of California, 18-00984280 (Orange Super. Ct., filed April 4, 2018).

"When the state was seeking to defend itself from the federal government, it turned around and tried to commandeer city resources," Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael S. Gates said in an interview Friday. "It was an unprecedented overreach."

The judge issued his order verbally after an extensive hearing Thursday. The state attorney general's office said until a written order is issued, it will continue to "uphold the laws of our state."

"Preserving the safety and constitutional rights of all our people is a statewide imperative which cannot be undermined by contrary local rules," Xavier Becerra said in an emailed statement Friday. "We will continue working to ensure that our values and laws, like the California Values Act, are upheld throughout our state."

SB-54, authored by Sen. Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown in October 2017, repealed provisions in state law that allowed arresting agencies to notify federal agencies when a person arrested for a violation of specified controlled substance laws may not be a citizen of the United States. Specifically, according to the language of the bill, the law "prohibit[s] state and local law enforcement agencies, including school, police and security departments, from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, and would, subject to exceptions, proscribe other activities or conduct in connection with immigration enforcement by law enforcement agencies."

Gates said in an effort to push back against the federal government, the state overstepped and subsequently trampled on cities' rights, governed by the state Constitution, specifically Article XI, Section 5, which gives cities the power to "make and enforce all ordinances and regulations in respect to municipal affairs," including "the constitution, regulation, and government of the city police force."

In its brief, the state argued the municipality's characterization of SB-54 as an immigration law is incorrect because it does not regulate whether or how people enter the country. The state cited the recent decision by U.S. District Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District in Sacramento who, in a July order, decided California can continue to bar local authorities from cooperating with U.S. immigration enforcement officials. U.S. v. California, 18-C00490 (E.D. Cal., filed March 6, 2018).

But Gates said the arguments occurring in numerous federal suits regarding the Trump administration's immigration policies deal with a different legal argument than the one in his case.

"The cases in federal court are just about government's right to effect immigration policy," Gates explained. "That's a different legal theory than ours, which is about local control and challenging the state's overreach on a state constitutional basis."

Still, he said, Crandall's ruling will likely ease the federal government's efforts to implement its immigration policies in California. According to the state's brief, California has more than 100 charter cities that, according to the judge's order, now have the authority to participate in detention efforts.

"The state cannot prevent charter cities from coordinating and communicating with federal agencies, so immigration authorities now can continue to cooperate with charter cities," Gates said.