Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ war on the Constitution was carried to Sacramento as he made clear that his previous commitment to states rights was predominantly a manifestation of racism. If abandoning the rights of states harms people of color and furthers the racist brand of the President, so be it.
In keeping with Sessions declaration of war, the Justice Department filed United States v. California which centers on three California policies. In this post, I will focus on the most important. California Senate Bill 54 took effect in January of this year. It largely prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using either personnel or funds to hold, question or share information about people with federal immigration agents unless those individuals have been convicted of one or more offenses from a list of 800 crime outlined in a 2013 state law.
If the federal government can draft state and local law enforcement agencies to enforce federal laws, this is plainly unconstitutional. But those agencies are not puppets of the state. They cannot in the words of the Court be “commandeered” to do the bidding of the federal government. Sessions has previously threatened to cut funding to those with similar policies. But a federal judge in Chicago has previously declared Sessions’ failure to respect federalism as unconstitutional.
Sessions is perhaps hoping that the Constitution means something different in California than in Chicago. Or he is hoping that a reactionary Supreme Court led by Federalist Society members will reject Federalism. Or perhaps, Jerry Brown is right: this is just another political stunt by a craven administration.
Comments