State high court speeds challenges of Newsom’s emergency orders

The California Supreme Court is working quickly this week to address a number of coronavirus-related petitions on expedited briefing schedules, all accusing Gov. Gavin Newsom of mishandling the pandemic in myriad ways.

Chief justice Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye on Monday denied one such petition, filed by Southern California ACLU attorney Peter Eliasberg, who sought the immediate release of allegedly vulnerable prisoners in jails and detention centers.

The petition claims California's lockups remain dangerously overpopulated and do not adhere to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention's guidelines for social distancing. The "impending viral explosion -- imminently likely to occur in most if not all of California's 58 counties -- will directly impact all California residents, including correctional staff, their families, and their respective communities," the complaint states.

In denying the petition, Cantil-Sakauye said the matter should be heard by trial judges in each county. "In a jurisdiction as large and diverse as California, it is evident that current conditions in detention facilities with regard to the COVID-19 pandemic are not uniform throughout the state," the chief justice wrote.

Responding Monday, Eliasberg said he was disappointed with the decision and believes delaying the matter for hearing as Cantil-Sakauye ordered will slow adjudication, putting more prisoners and surrounding communities at risk. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Newsom, S261827 (Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2020).

"We went to the Supreme Court because we were hoping to get a quick and statewide solution, and unfortunately the court's decision doesn't allow that to happen and the situation is going to get worse," Eliasberg said. "We lawyers exaggerate sometimes, but this is truly a life or death situation."

In another expedited petition, Benitez v. Newsom, S261804 (Cal., filed Apr. 22, 2020), Newsom is accused of misappropriating coronavirus emergency funds to give to people residing in the country illegally. On April 15, Newsom announced California would provide $75 million in disaster relief assistance to those who do not have legal permission to remain in the U.S. and who "are ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits and disaster relief."

He also said nonprofit organizations have committed to raising an additional $50 million as "financial support for immigrant workers affected by COVID-19."

In response, Harmeet K. Dhillion of the Dhillon Law Group Inc. and the Center for American Liberty filed a writ petition in the state Supreme Court on April 22, claiming such allocation of state money violates a law against "the appropriation of public funds for the benefit of organizations not within the exclusive management and control of the State."

The money may only be appropriated by the legislative branch and Newsom should not use it as a slush fund to spend as he sees fit, Dhillon said.

"The governor has, I think, begun to be very comfortable in this role of making all the rules with no due process, no court checks, no legislative check and no accountability, and it is really dangerous on a government level," Dhillon said in a phone interview Monday. "This one involves $75 million in taxpayers' money and it was urgent. That is why we went to the California Supreme Court. I'll tell you I'm not a lawyer that does that frequently, but it was an emergency, so that is why we did it."

Responding by email Monday, Newsom spokeswoman Vicky Waters said, "California is taking legally justified and morally necessary action to assist all Californians impacted by COVID-19.

"These actions benefit public health and the economic wellbeing of families and communities hit hardest by this pandemic. We look forward to defending what we know to be right in court," Waters continued.

Among other grounds, Dhillon argues the payment of funds to those who entered the U.S. illegally results in an unconstitutional "gift of public funds," and should be blocked by the Supreme Court. The court has yet to rule.

On the other end of the political spectrum, the Supreme Court in California Attorneys For Criminal Justice v. Newsom, S261829 (Cal., filed Apr. 24, 2020),requested preliminary opposition briefs on April 24 to a writ petition asking for a moratorium on immigrant detainee transfers to state prison and jails.

Filed by Jennifer Lee Pasquarella of the ACLU of Southern California, the petition accuses the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency of failing to protect the lives of detainees in its custody. It also claims California is not legally required to make these transfers, and it is "aware of the unconscionable conditions" in the five ICE detention centers in the state.

"The State of California is aware of the unconscionable conditions in ICE's detention centers," the petition reads. "Attorney General Becerra called the conditions a 'COVID-19-related catastrophe' in the making, and even demanded that ICE halt the transfers and introduction of new individuals into its detention facilities. Yet, the State of California is just as responsible for populating ICE's 'death trap' detention centers."

"Unfortunately in many cases, I think people will die because of the conditions in immigration custody and so we're asking the court intervene to put a temporary halt to these transfers during the Covid 19 pandemic," Pasquarella said in a phone interview Monday. "These transfers are discretionary, there is no law requiring the state to transfer people into ICE custody. So by transferring people to ICE, you're sending them into extremely dangerous conditions and there's no justification for putting people's lives at risk."

In the state's opposition brief, R. Matthew Wise of the attorney general's office said the allegations made by petitioners are "serious and alarming."

"But it is misdirected here: The proper recourse is to bring suit against ICE directly," Wise wrote. "Indeed, as petitioners acknowledge, affected parties are already doing so with success in federal court."

"This administration has been clear on our stance against abuses in immigration detention centers," Waters said in an email Monday. "We call on the Department of Homeland Security to use the administrative discretion it has under federal law to work with public health authorities to implement appropriate actions to protect individuals in its custody, staff and local communities."

The court has yet to rule on the matter.