Supreme Court won’t hear Trump administration challenge to California sanctuary law
PUBLISHED MON, JUN 15 20209:56 AM EDTUPDATED MON, JUN 15 202011:19 AM EDT
- The Supreme Court said it will not hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to a so-called sanctuary law in California.
- The law was passed as part of an effort to limit the impact of the president’s immigration agenda in the state.
- The case concerned a California law passed in 2017 that limits how state and local law enforcement can assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.
Hundreds of people gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court to rally in support of the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals program as the court hears arguments about DACA November 12, 2019 in Washington, DC.
Chip Somodevilla | Getty Images
The Supreme Court on Monday said it will not hear a challenge brought by the Trump administration to a so-called sanctuary law in California that was passed to limit the impact of the president’s immigration agenda in the state.
The case concerned a California law passed in 2017 that limits how state and local law enforcement can assist the federal government in immigration enforcement.
With certain exceptions, the law bars state and local law enforcement agencies from informing the federal government of an individual’s home address, work address or date of release from custody for the purpose of immigration enforcement.
It also prevents state and local officials from transferring someone into the custody of immigration officials without a warrant.
The Trump administration sued California over the measure, alleging that it was invalid under federal law.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued in court papers that the law’s “conceded purpose to obstruct — and effect of obstructing — federal law through its own regulatory scheme makes the state law unenforceable.”
A federal district court ruled in California’s favor and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.
President Donald Trump, who is facing reelection in November, was elected on a promise to make the nation’s immigration laws more restrictive.
The case is United States v. California, No. 19-532.
Comments are closed