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

Home Browse Search

AB 937 Page 8 A 2019 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal upheld the legitimacy of the Values act. (US v. California (2019) 921 F.3d 865.) The U.S. Supreme Court subsequently declined the opportunity to review the case. The case was first heard in federal district court. The District Court held that the Values Act was not preempted by federal law: “California's decision not to assist federal immigration enforcement in its endeavors is not an ‘obstacle’ to that enforcement effort. [The United States'] argument that SB 54 makes immigration enforcement far more burdensome begs the question: more burdensome than what? The laws make enforcement more burdensome than it would be if state and local law enforcement provided immigration officers with their assistance. But refusing to help is not the same as impeding. If such were the rule, obstacle preemption could be used to commandeer state resources and subvert Tenth Amendment principles.” (California I, 314 F. Supp. 3d at 1104.) The case was appealed to the 9th District Court of Appeal which upheld the decision of the district court regarding the Values Act. The 9th District Court of Appeal stated, “Even if SB 54 obstructs federal immigration enforcement, the United States' position that such obstruction is unlawful runs directly afoul of the Tenth Amendment and the anticommandeering rule.” (U.S. v. California, at 888.) The United States' primary argument against SB 54 was that it forces federal authorities to expend greater resources to enforce immigration laws. However, the 9th District Court of Appeal found that would be the case regardless of SB 54, since California would still retain the ability to decline to administer the federal program under the anticommandeering rule. Under the anticommandeering rule Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures and permits a state to refuse to adopt federal policies. The court held that even in the absence of SB 54, Congress could not "impress into its service—and at no cost to itself—the police officers of the 50 States." (Id. at 889.) The 9th District Court of Appeal noted that: “F ederal schemes are inevitably frustrated when states opt not to participate in federal programs or enforcement efforts. But the choice of a state to refrain from participation cannot be invalid under the doctrine of obstacle preemption where, as here, it retains the right of refusal. Extending conflict or obstacle preemption to SB 54 would, in effect, ‘dictate[] what a state legislature may and may not do,’ Murphy, 138 S. Ct. at 1478, because it would imply that a state's otherwise lawful decision not to assist federal authorities is made unlawful when it is codifie d as state law.” (Id. at 890.) This bill would expand on the scope of the Values Act by extending the prohibition on cooperation with immigration authorities to all state and local agencies. The reasoning behind the 9th District’s holding in U.S. v. California would likely continue to apply to the expansion in scope. However, this bill potentially conflict s with existing federal statutes require specific types of communication on immigration status to be exchanged between immigration authorities and state and local entities. The Values Act specifically allowed law enforcement to c omply with two federal statutes related to immigration enforcement. (8 U.S.C. 1373, subd. (a), and 8 U.S.C. 1644.) These statutes prohibit a state and local government from in any way restricting, any government