In charging the the state of California with interfering with immigration enforcement, the Trump administration may rely in part on a ruling by the Supreme Court during the Obama administration that upheld the power of the federal government to regulate immigration
In 2010, the state of Arizona passed a law that aimed to ease the ability of officials there to identify, prosecute and deport immigrants who were in the country unlawfully. The Obama administration sued to block enforcement of the measure, which the administration contended interfered with federal enforcement.
A majority of the court agreed. Federal law trumped the Arizona measure, which required that aliens carry proof of registration with the federal government, barred unauthorized immigrants from seeking employment in the state, and allowed state police to arrest someone without a warrant based on suspicion they should be deported.
All conflicted with federal law, the court found. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that the federal government has broad authority over immigration.
“With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse,” he wrote. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
In a lawsuit filed on Tuesday, the Trump administration accused California of undermining federal immigration enforcement by enacting a series of laws that promote so-called sanctuary policies.
In a speech on Wednesday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions accused the state of intentionally using “every power the legislature has to undermine the duly established immigration laws of America.”
California officials responded that the state’s legislation does not interfere with federal law enforcement. Governor Jerry Brown accused the administration of attempting “to further divide and polarize America.”
He pointed to a statement he made last October when he signed the measures. “In enshrining these new protections, it is important to note what the bill does not do,” he wrote. “This bill does not prevent or prohibit Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the Department of Homeland Security from doing their own work in any way. They are free to use their own considerable resources to enforce federal immigration law in California.”
Legal experts agreed. The laws in Arizona and California differ, with the legislation in the Golden State unlikely to interfere with federal enforcement, Pratheepan Gulasekaram, a professor of law at Santa Clara University who studies state regulation of immigration, told the Associated Press.
Arizona created a “parallel immigration enforcement system” with its own laws, while California is setting standards for cooperation with federal immigration officials,” Gulasekaram said.