Speaking at a San Francisco news conference, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said the state’s suit argues that the Justice Department is violating the Constitution by trying to implement a new policy that would deny grants to jurisdictions that fail to give immigration authorities access to local jails or fail to give immigration officials 48 hours notice on the release of prisoners being sought on immigration charges, Politico reports.
“We abide by federal law. We respect the Constitution. The federal government should do the same. … The federal government is using the threat of its power, of its size, to bully local jurisdictions to do what they want.” Becerra said.
California is joining two localities already suing over the policy change the Trump administration announced last month, Chicago and San Francisco. The suits argue that the administration lacks authority from Congress to add new conditions to federal grants. They also contend that the new policy amounts to a kind of coercion intended to press local law enforcement into acting at the direction of federal officials, Politico adds.
Justice Department officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco Monday evening, well after the morning news conference.
However, Attorney General Jeff Sessions has argued that the Justice Department is permitted to direct its grant resources to jurisdictions that cooperate with efforts to enforce federal immigration laws. He’s also argued that the sanctuary policies are reckless and endanger communities by releasing foreigners wanted for deportation rather than holding them for federal agents.
“No amount of federal taxpayer dollars will help a city that refuses to help its own residents,” Sessions said in response to the Chicago suit last week.
“To a degree perhaps unsurpassed by any other jurisdiction, the political leadership of Chicago has chosen deliberately and intentionally to adopt a policy that obstructs this country’s lawful immigration system.” he added.
Sanctuary proponents contend the policies make communities safer by encouraging members of the public, even those in the country illegally, to cooperate with local law enforcement.
Becerra said about $28 million in grants to California communities are a stake in the current dispute.
“We will fight to get back the tax dollars that we contribute to the federal Treasury to do the work of local law enforcement here in California that we not only deserve, but we pay for as federal taxpayers,” he said.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who filed suit against the policy on Friday, also complained of federal overreach.
“The president is once again attempting to end-run the Constitution. This is a backdoor attempt to force states and local governments to carry out federal immigration enforcement. Immigration enforcement is the federal government’s job. They can do it in San Francisco and every other city in the country. We are not stopping them.” Herrera said.
Becerra invoked the 10th Amendment’s language that reserves unenumerated powers to the states, but he rejected comparisons to Southern states that used similar arguments to defy federal civil rights enforcement in the 1960s.
“We’re not asking our police and sheriffs’ deputies to violate the rights of the people they’re sworn to protect. There’s a very different use of the 10th Amendment and the states rights argument today… We’re trying to protect people, not to harm them.” Becerra said.
In a related development, the Justice Department argued Monday that Chicago’s suit over the same policy does not need to be accelerated. While the city noted that the deadline to apply for the so-called Byrne grants is September 5, Justice Department lawyers said the timing of grant awards and the deadline to accept such awards means there’s no need to rush Chicago’s motion for an injunction.
Chicago “is months away from any conceivable deadline to decide whether to accept an award on whatever terms might be imposed”, the Justice Department said in a filing with U.S. District Court Judge Harry Leinenweber, who has yet to act on the city’s motion.
Earlier this year, several localities in Massachusetts and California, including San Francisco, filed legal challenges to an early Trump executive order that threatened a broad crackdown on sanctuary cities. Sessions issued a directive giving a limited scope to that order, but a federal judge has declined to lift an injunction he issued blocking use of Trump’s order to impose grant conditions beyond existing federal law.
The implications of that injunction for the new policy are unclear, although the judge’s directive does not appear to cover policy actions the administration takes that are not in response to Trump’s executive order.
Be the first to comment