LA judge OKs $75M in state funds to those in the country illegally

LOS ANGELES -- A judge denied a temporary restraining order seeking to block the disbursement of $75 million in state unemployment insurance benefits to people who entered the country illegally and do not qualify for them.

The ruling by Judge Samantha P. Jessner largely sided with arguments by the office of Attorney General Xavier Becerra. Jessner's decision was a response to an ex parte application filed by nonprofit Judicial Watch arguing Gov. Gavin Newsom dispensed with federal law during the pandemic by authorizing the one-time cash benefit.

Jessner, supervising judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court's civil division, weighed the benefits of those in the country illegally who lost jobs against the harm posed to taxpayers who are unlikely to get the funds back should they win the case. Jessner said the $75 million didn't rise to a significant level of harm to taxpayers. She said of the beneficiaries of Newsom's action, "If they do not receive those monies that will present more harm than is already existing."

Following the hearing, Robert P. Sticht, an attorney for Judicial Watch, said the judge's ruling is "rubber stamping the illegality."

The organization said it would appeal.

"It is astonishing that a court would allow a public official to ignore the law and spend tax money with no legal authority," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a statement. "Simply put, as the court seems to acknowledge, the governor has no independent legal authority to spend state taxpayer money for cash payments to illegal aliens."

The state attorney general's office deferred comment to the governor's office, who did not respond to a request for comment.

Other legal action has been taken against Newsom's office over the payments, including a petition with the state Supreme Court filed by Center for American Liberty, led by its founder, Harmeet Dhillon of Dhillon Law Group LLP. That action says Newsom's initiative violates the state Constitution, while Judicial Watch's lawsuit argues it violates federal immigration laws. Benitez v. Newsom, S261804 (CA S. Ct., filed April 23, 2020). Crest v. Newsom, 20STCV16321 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed April 29, 2020).

The money is coming from two bills, $63 million from SB 89, which was general funds authorized for the pandemic, and $16.5 million from SB 80, authorized last year. Sticht said federal law dictates that if the money is to be used for people who have entered the country without legal permission, the law must say so.

In court, Sticht told the judge California was in violation of federal law for granting relief without the Legislature passing the appropriate authorization law.

"There is nothing that authorizes an imminent expenditure and there is nothing that prevents the court from temporarily restraining that expenditure while you consider the merits," said Sticht, while wearing gloves and tugging down his face mask to make arguments from the gallery. The judge wasn't wearing a mask but was distanced from counsel.

The state of California argued it had the powers to disburse the funds because it is in a state of emergency.

"Since 2019 the status quo has been that the Legislature has unequivocally expressed its intention to provide critical assistance benefits to undocumented Californians in times of emergency," said Deputy Attorney General Anna Ferrari, who made arguments by phone.

Talk also shifted to the pending petition before the state Supreme Court. The state believes it is largely the same legal issue in dispute, that the funds are an unlawful gift of public funds, while Judicial Watch disagreed.

The program is expected to become operational May 18. A ruling by the state Supreme Court might happen any day, or it mighty not, according to the parties.

The judge asked if defendants would hold off on sending funds pending action from the high court.

"Is it the intent of the Department of Social Services to go ahead and distribute benefits?"

"I cannot say with certainty," Ferrari said.

"The state Supreme Court may never act. It may sit on this for a long time," Sticht said.

Roughly 150,000 people are eligible for the aid, which is identified as a one-time $500 payment with a cap of $1,000 per household for those unemployed who are in the country without legal permission, the governor's office has said.