Item 21 - Assembly Bill 937 (the “VISION Act”)

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page 7 Gillette Company, et. al., v. Franchise Tax Board (2015) 62 Cal.4th 468,483. This bill would amend the Values Act by repealing the portions of the Values Act which allow law enforcement to cooperate under certain circumstances. Rather than amend the Values Act, this bill creates a new statute and the repeals the portions of the Values Act by cross reference. By failing to amend the Values Act, it creates confusion about how this bill will change current law. To the extent that the provisions of this bill conflict with the Values Act, it is not clear which statute would control. One example of a potential conflict involves the directive in the Values Act for the Attorney General to develop model policies. The Values Act required that the Attorney General to publish model polices limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state, courthouses, division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters. Under the Values Act, certain agencies are required to adopt those policies, and the other entities are encouraged to adopt them. Would the provisions of this bill take precedence over compliance with the policies generated by the Attorney General if there was a conflict between the policies developed by the Attorney General and the provisions of this bill? Expressly amending the Values Act would provide legislators and the public clarity about how the provisions of this bill are intended to interact with current law. 4) The Language in This Bill Prohibiting a State or Local Agency From Assisting Immigration Enforcement is Quite Broad: This bill specifies that a “state or local agency shall not arrest or assist with the arrest, confinement, detention, transfer, interrogat ion, or deportation of an individual for an immigration enforcement purpose in any manner, . . .” To “assist an immigration enforcement purpose in any manner” covers a wide range of behavior, including making information available. That language is broad enough that a state and local agency will need to evaluate whether any action it engages in might assist in immigration enforcement, regardless of whether the action might have a policy purpose unconnected to immigration enforcement. Any information that a state or local agency shares with a federal entity makes it likely that such information would be accessible by federal immigration authorities. It could be difficult for a state or local agency determine if any information shared with federal agency might “assist” an immigration enforcement purpose leading to an interrogation, detention, or ultimately deportation. State and local agencies would face a similar problem with information that is available to the public either via a website or through a public records request. If such information could assist with immigration enforcement, should the state or local agency release such information? This bill would expose any state or local agency to civil liability if the agency assists immigration enforcement in any manner. 5) Lawsuit Challenging the Values ACT (U.S. v. California): The federal government filed suit in federal court to challenge the Values Act asserting that the Values Act was preempted and violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitut ion because the Values Act constituted an “obstacle” to federal immigration enforcement.