“United States v. California”


VICTORY — VICTORY IS OUR CRY, V-I-C-T-O-R-Y..! So cheered the hundreds of parents and fellow students at Friday night football games during my high school years; football competed with my hunger for knowledge. Today, I watch football with adult dispassion weighing my strategic game thinking against coaches who weren’t even born when I played.
Unlike those high school days, my mind is far fuller with knowledge for two reasons: My brain matured; my knowledge increased to satisfy my hunger to know everything.
On serious matters of state, law, and social contract my brain is full of questions, answers, and political-social and economic thoughts that occasionally are stoked by events that, at least in my mind, bring back the cheer — Victory, Victory…
On Monday, June 15, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) announced that it would not hear an appeal from the Trump Administration of a 9th Circuit Court of Appeal decision to deny the Trump Administration’s lawsuit challenging the State of California’s Sanctuary state law, SB54.
The law prohibits California resources and state personnel from being used as adjunct federal employees. The Trump administration insists that California state and local personnel must obey federal orders and requests to do its bidding.
In particular, the federal government insists that state personnel in the California prison and jail system must obey orders, random memorandums, and written requests from federal immigration offices and officers demanding prisons and jails turn over inmates these offices and officers want to detain, arrest and/or deport.
The facts are that if a federal immigration officer delivers a warrant signed by a federal judge demanding transfer or custody of an individual upon that person’s release, the state or local officer must comply with the judge’s order.
If, however, the piece of paper involved is not a judge signed order or warrant, California says it will not and does not honor the piece of paper for it is a piece of paper without any legal basis and violates the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.
It says, “…no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Is the State of California and its personnel simply an adjunct of the federal government or not? That is the question. California says the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution answers in California’s favor. The Trump Administration says otherwise. The federal government lost in Sacramento’s federal district court and lost its appeal to the 9th Circuit.
Only two Supreme Court justices voted to hear the appeal, Justice Alito and Justice Thomas. Four justices must vote to hear an appeal.
The Trump Administration claims: “Aliens are present and may remain in the United States only as provided for under the auspices of federal immigration law; It…is the United States, not California, that ‘retains the right’ to set the conditions under which aliens in this country may be detained, released, and removed. As a result of SB 54, criminal aliens have evaded the detention and removal that Congress prescribed, and have instead returned to the civilian population, where they are disproportionately likely to commit additional crimes.”
California claims: “SB 54 regulates the use of the state’s own resources. It establishes the conditions under which state and local law enforcement agencies may deploy public funds and personnel to assist with federal immigration enforcement.”
California won. President Trump lost. Neither Trump Supreme Court appointee (Gorsuch or Kavanaugh) voted for Trump’s position. Interesting.