United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 124

MOTION for LEAVE to FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF by Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law (and associated parties). Attorney Schey, Peter Anthony added. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Schey, Peter) Modified on 5/21/2018 (Benson, A.).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS & CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Peter A. Schey (Cal. Bar No. 58232)
Carlos Holguín (Cal. Bar No. 90754)
256 South Occidental Boulevard
Los Angeles, CA 90057
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae

9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

13

Plaintiff,

14

vs

15
16

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL.,

17

Defendants.

18

_

19

///

20
21

///

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Legal Services Providers Amici Brief

)
) Case No. CV 2:18-cv-490-JAM-KJN
)
) LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS AMICI
) CURIAE BRIEF
)
) NO HEARING NOTICED
)
) Honorable John A. Mendez
)
)
)

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

2
3

I. INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1

4
5

II. INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF AMICUS CURIAE ............................................. 1

6
7

III. ARGUMENT ........................................................................................................... 2

8
9
10

1. WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
OF AB 450 AND FEDERAL LAW ACTUALLY IMPACT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS, THE
IMMIGRATION WORKER PROTECTION ACT IS NOT FEDERALLY PREEMPTED ................... 2

11
12
13

2. WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
OF AB 103 AND FEDERAL LAW IMPACT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS, AB 103 IS NOT
FEDERALLY PREEMPTED ................................................................................................ 6

14
15
16

3. WHEN VIEWED FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF HOW IMPLEMENTATION AND OPERATION
OF SB 54 AND FEDERAL LAW ACTUALLY IMPACT LOW-INCOME IMMIGRANTS, SB 54 IS
NOT FEDERALLY PREEMPTED ......................................................................................... 9

17
18

IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 14

19
20

///

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- ii -

.

1

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

2
3

Cases

4

Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012) ................................................. 8, 14

5

Duncan Roy et al. v. County of Los Angeles et. al, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27268 (C.D.
Cal. 2018) ................................................................................................................... 14

6
7
8

Statutes

9

California Government Code § 7285.1(a) ....................................................................... 3

10

California Government Code § 7285.2(a) ....................................................................... 3

11

California Government Code § 12532(b)(1) ................................................................... 8

12

California Government Code § 12532(b)(1)(A)-(C) ................................................... 7, 8

13
14

California Government Code § 7282.5.......................................................................... 10

15

California Government Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(C) ............................................................. 9

16

California Government Code §§ 7310-7311 ................................................................... 7

17

California Government Code §12532(a) ......................................................................... 7

18

California Government Code §7284.6(a)(1)(A)-(E) ....................................................... 9

19

California Lab. Code § 1019.2(a) ............................................................................ 4, 5, 6

20
21

California Labor Code §90.2(a)(1) .................................................................................. 3

22

8 U.S.C. § 1373 ............................................................................................................... 9

23

8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) ..................................................................................................... 9, 10

24

8 U.S.C. §1373 .............................................................................................................. 11

25
26

INA § 274(b)(3)............................................................................................................... 5
INA § 274A ................................................................................................................. 4, 6

27
28

INA § 274A (b)(1)(A) ..................................................................................................... 5
INA § 274A.(b)(2) ........................................................................................................... 6
- iii -

.

1

INA § 274A(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii). ........................................................................................... 5

2
3

Regulations

4

8 C.F.R. § 274a ................................................................................................................ 5

5

8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(2)(ii) .............................................................................................. 3

6

8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(B)(d)(vii) ....................................................................................... 5

7
8

8 C.F.R. § 274a2(b)(B)(d)(vii) ........................................................................................ 5

9

INA § 274(b)(3)(B)(i)-(ii) ............................................................................................... 5

10

Other authorities

11

Santa Ana: Ordinance No. NS-2908, Dec. 20, 2016, Sec. 6…………………………11

12
13
14
15

Mike McPhate: California Today: Worries Over Deportation, N.Y. TIMES,
April 5, 2017………………………………………………………………………… 12
Nik Theodore, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in
Immigration Enforcement, Univ. Ill. at Chicago, 7 (May 2013) ……………….
12

16
17

///

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

- iv -

.

I. INTRODUCTION

1
2
3
4

The United States seeks to enjoin enforcement of certain provisions of California
law enacted through Assembly Bill 450, Assembly Bill 103, and Senate Bill 54

5

(“challenged California statutes”). The Amici will focus on the real life experiences of

6

their low-income clients as they navigate the intersection of the implementation by

7
8

California of the challenged statutes and by the Department of Homeland Security

9

(“DHS”) of federal law. Viewed through this lens, it becomes apparent that the

10

California statutes are not preempted by federal law, primarily because the California

11
12

statutes do not constitute legislation in a field that is exclusively occupied by the

13

federal government, does not conflict with federal laws, and do not stand as an obstacle

14

to the federal government’s enforcement of immigration law.

15
16

II.

INTEREST AND IDENTITY OF AMICUS CURIAE

17

Amici are the Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law, the Legal Aid

18

Foundation of Los Angeles, the Legal Aid Society of Orange County, El Rescate, the

19
20
21
22

International Institute of Los Angeles, the Legal Aid Foundation of Santa Barbara
County, the Public Law Center, and La Raza Centro Legal. Amici are non-profit
programs providing free legal services to low-income California residents, including

23
24
25
26

immigrants. The proper resolution of this case is a matter of utmost concern to these
programs because of its impact on their clients, many of who are immigrants or U.S.
citizens with immigrant family members.

27
28

LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS AMICI BRIEF

1

1
2

The proposed Amici’s clients are mandated to comply with California and federal
laws. Some of the Amici programs have clients that have been, are being, or may in the

3
4

future be detained by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), the

5

immigration enforcement arm of the DHS, and some have immigrant clients who are

6

workers with rights and obligations under the challenged California statutes and

7
8
9
10

applicable federal laws.
The proposed Amici will show that their immigrant clients’ treatment, rights and
obligations under the challenged California statutes, in no way adversely impacts their

11
12
13

clients’ treatment, rights and obligations under relevant federal immigration laws.
In short, when viewed through the lens of the actual implementation and

14

operation of AB 450, AB 103 and SB 54, and of relevant federal immigration laws, as
15
16

experienced by those the laws are intended to impact, immigrants and those enforcing

17

the state and federal laws regarding these immigrants are in full compliance with both

18

the challenged state statutes and applicable federal laws. This strongly indicates federal
19
20
21

law does not preempt the challenged California statutes.
III. ARGUMENT

22
23
24
25

1. When viewed from the perspective of how implementation and operation of
AB 450 and federal law actually impact low-income immigrants, the
Immigration Worker Protection Act is not federally preempted
The Immigrant Worker Protection Act (“AB 450”) prohibits employers from

26
27
28

voluntarily cooperating with federal immigration officials in certain circumstances.
2017 Cal. Stat. c. 492. AB 450 added §§7285.1-.2 to Government Code to prohibit

-2-

.

1
2

employers’ “voluntary consent to an immigration enforcement agent … enter[ing] any
nonpublic areas of a place of labor” without a warrant, Cal. Gov’t Code § 7285.1(a), or

3
4

“voluntary consent to … access… employee records” without a subpoena, a judicial

5

warrant, or notice of inspection. Cal. Gov’t Code § 7285.2(a).

6

In Amici’s clients’ experiences, ICE requests and picks up copies of I-9 forms

7
8

and their attachments. These documents are not reviewed at the location of the

9

business but at ICE offices where databases are accessed to determined whether

10

employees whose I-9 forms are being reviewed are authorized to be employed, whether

11
12

false documents have been used to gain employment, and whether the employer has

13

properly completed the I-9 forms. AB 450 will not interfere with this process.

14

In Amici’s clients’ experiences, ICE always commences I-9 audits of employers

15
16

by serving a Notice of Inspection. Therefore, implementation of this provision of AB

17

450 will not deter ICE from conducting I-9 audits of Amici’s clients’ I-9 records in the

18

custody of their employers.
19
20
21

AB 450 also added § 90.2 to the Labor Code to require posting notice of any
immigration-related inspections of I-9 forms or other employment records within 72

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

hours of receiving a notice of the inspection. Cal. Labor Code §90.2(a)(1).
As required by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(2)(ii), it is Amici’s clients’ experience that
ICE routinely provides a minimum of three days notice, and usually a few weeks
notice, to Amici’s clients’ employers, before conducting I-9 audits. As noted above, in
practice ICE almost always serves employers with a Notice of Inspection well before

-3-

.

1
2

the actual inspection takes place. Some of Amici’s clients are already provided the type
of notices referred to in § 90.2. Many labor union contracts require such notices.

3
4

Employers very often advise Amici’s clients of pending I-9 audits as the employers and

5

Amici’s clients wish to review and update their I-9 forms prior to copying the I-9

6

forms and supporting documents to provide to ICE for its review. Indeed, providing

7
8

Amici’s clients with notice of a pending I-9 audit gives them an opportunity to update

9

their I-9 records, facilitating and making more efficient ICE’s audit.

10

Section 90.2 will not in any material way alter Amici’s client’s rights or

11
12

obligations – or their employers’ rights and obligations – under federal law. Amici are

13

aware of no actions by DHS to implement any federal law, regulation, or policy

14

impacting their clients’ actions or decisions that is prohibited or changed by what §

15
16
17

90.2 requires.
AB 450 prohibits Amici’s clients’ employers from “re-verifying the employment

18

eligibility of a current employee at a time or in a manner not required by specified
19
20

federal law.” Cal Lab. Code § 1019.2(a). This state law will not interfere in any way

21

with ICE’sI-9 functions. The law clearly remains that Amici’s clients’ employers shall

22
23

not: “Hire, or to recruit or refer for a fee, for employment in the United States an alien

24

knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien (as defined in subsection (h)(3)) with

25

respect to such employment …” 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(1).

26
27
28

Under INA § 274A Amici’s clients’ employers are required to “attest … on a
form … that [they have] verified that the individual is not an unauthorized alien,” by

-4-

.

1
2

examining certain documents designated by the DHS Secretary. INA § 274A (b)(1)(A).
If an Amici client provides a document that reasonably appears on its face to be

3
4

genuine, nothing in federal law Amici is aware of based on its clients’ experiences

5

requires the employer to solicit the production of any other document from Amici’s

6

clients. This is consistent with the terms of INA § 274A(b)(1)(A)(i)-(ii).

7
8

The INA requires Amici’s clients’ employers to retain verification forms and to

9

make them available for inspection by DHS officers. INA § 274(b)(3). Nothing in AB

10

450 changes this. Amici’s clients’ employers also retain verification documents for

11
12

three years after the date of recruiting or referral, in the case of hiring of an individual

13

three years after the date of such hiring, or one year after the date the individual’s

14

employment is terminated, whichever is later. This is required by INA §
15
16
17
18

274(b)(3)(B)(i)-(ii) and 8 C.F.R. § 274a. Nothing in AB 450 changes this.
Upon employment authorization expiration, Amici’s clients’ employers who are
complying with federal law re-verify on the Form 1-9 to reflect that Amici’s clients are

19
20

still authorized to work in the United States. This is required by 8 C.F.R. §

21

274a2(b)(B)(d)(vii). Amici’s clients’ employers generally re-verify the document’s

22
23

identification number and expiration date, on the Form I-9 and sign the attestation.

24

This practice is required by 8 C.F.R. § 274a.2(b)(B)(d)(vii). Nothing in AB450

25

changes this.

26
27
28

Under California Labor Code § 1019.2(a) (AB 450) no changes are made
regarding what documents Amici’s clients’ employers must review and attest to permit

-5-

.

1
2

gainful lawful employment. Rather AB 450 reinforces current federal regulations, the
United States Code, and established employer-employee protocols.

3
4
5
6

California Labor Code § 1019.2(a) does not nullify Amici’s clients’ employers’
duties to ensure lawful employment, or to comply with documentation review,
attestation, and documentation retention.

7
8
9
10

Under INA § 274A Amici’s clients are still required to attest and establish that
they are citizens or nationals of the United States, immigrants lawfully admitted for
permanent residence, or immigrants authorized under the Act or by the Attorney

11
12

General to be hired, recruited, or referred for such employment. Amici’s clients must

13

and do still comply with the documentation requirements set out at in INA §

14

274A(b)(1)-(2), and 8 C.F.R. § 274a.
15
16
17
18

From the perspective of Amici’s clients’ rights and obligations, AB 450 does not
conflict or interfere with the enforcement of federal statutes or rules as they regulate
Amici’s clients’ right to be employed and obligations upon being hired and while they

19
20

remain employed. In their interactions with the State and federal governments, Amici’s

21

clients and their employers have rights that can be honored and obligations that can be

22
23
24
25

fulfilled created by state and federal laws that are not in conflict.
2. When viewed from the perspective of how implementation and operation of
AB 103 and federal law impact low-income immigrants, AB 103 is not
federally preempted

26
27
28

Sections 6 and 12 of Assembly Bill 103 (AB 103) added Chapter 17.8 and
§12532 to the Government Code, respectively. 2017 Cal. Stat. c. 17, §§6, 12. Under

-6-

.

1
2

§12532, state governmental officials must review “detention facilities in which
noncitizens are being housed or detained for purposes of civil immigration proceedings

3
4

in California,” California Government Code §12532(a), and report on the conditions of

5

confinement, the standard of care and due process provided to detainees, and the

6

circumstances of the detainees’ apprehension and transfer to the facility. Id.

7
8

§12532(b)(1). Under Chapter 17.8, municipal government or law-enforcement

9

agencies with no contract to house adult or minor noncitizen detainees for civil-

10

immigration purposes may not enter such contracts, and municipal government or law-

11
12

enforcement agencies with such contracts may not enter into new contracts to expand

13

the number of contract beds used in locked detention facilities. California Government

14

Code §§ 7310-7311.
15
16
17

The relevant portion of § 12532 states the review of detention facilities shall
include, but not be limited to the following:

18

(A)

A review of the conditions of confinement, (B) A review of the

19
20

standard of care and due process provided to the individuals …, (C) A

21

review of the circumstances around their apprehension and transfer to

22
23
24
25

the facility.
California Government Code § 12532(b)(1)(A)-(C)
Amici’s clients housed in non-federal contracted facilities awaiting removal

26
27

proceedings will be in the functionally same position with regards to the federal

28

-7-

.

1
2

government’s arrest, removal, and deportation determinations with or without the
enactment of CAL. California Government Code § 12532(b)(1)(A)-(C).

3
4
5
6

In Arizona v, United States, the Court held that States cannot make unilateral
determinations “about the removability of immigrants” wholly separate from federal
officials, and that any attempt to do so creates an obstacle to the full purpose and

7
8
9
10

objective of Congress. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 419 (2012).
California Government Code § 12532(b)(1) is not conflict preempted and does
not parallel section 6 of Arizona’s law, purporting to allow state officials to decide that

11
12
13
14

an immigrant should be held for deportation, and then arrest the immigrant.
Unlike Arizona, California state officials are not engaging in a unilateral role to
override the federal government’s detention of Amici’s immigrant clients or

15
16

challenging the federal government’s decision on removability. ICE already contracts

17

with for-profit companies and non-profit groups to detain Amici’s clients in California

18

and may continue to do so.
19
20
21
22
23

Under AB 103 ICE agents currently possess the same authority to engage in the
arrest and detention of Amici’s clients who are subject to arrest and detention under
federal law as they possessed prior to the enactment of AB 103. Amici’s clients do not

24

have a greater or lesser defense to deportation under AB 103, or a greater or lesser

25

opportunity for release on bond.

26
27
28

Amici’s clients who may be detained for ICE in California facilities may in the
long run benefit by having due process abuses curbed through the issuance of reports

-8-

.

1
2

contemplated by AB 103, but their basic rights and obligations under federal law will
remain unchanged. There is therefore no conflict between AB 103 and federal law.

3
4
5
6

3. When viewed from the perspective of how implementation and operation of
SB 54 and federal law actually impact low-income immigrants, SB 54 is not
federally preempted
Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”), the California Values Act, in limited ways restricts

7
8

state and local law enforcement from voluntarily cooperating with federal agencies

9

with regards certain California immigrants. These include providing release dates

10

except in the cases of serious crimes, detaining individuals based on unconstitutional

11
12

federal hold requests, providing individuals’ home or work addresses to immigration

13

officials, and making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil

14

immigration warrants. California Government Code §7284.6(a)(1)(A)-(E). None of
15
16

these requirements violate any existing federal laws with which Amici’s clients or their

17

police or jailers must comply.

18

Under 8 U.S.C. § 1373 entities or officials detaining Amici’s clients may not

19
20

prohibit or restrict the sending to or receiving from DHS, “information regarding the

21

citizenship or immigration status,” of any individual. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). Nothing in

22
23
24
25

SB 54 changes Amici’s clients’ rights or protections from such federally mandated
disclosures.
Under amended California Government Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(C), California law

26
27
28

enforcement agencies shall not use their resources to investigate, interrogate, detain,
detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including providing

-9-

.

1
2

information regarding a person’s release date unless that information is available to the
public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in

3
4

accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under

5

this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.

6

8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) does not address policies limiting other forms of information

7
8

sharing with DHS regarding Amici’s clients. As before, Amici’s clients’ citizenship and

9

immigration status will still be shared with federal entities.

10

Pursuant to California Government Code § 7282.5, local law enforcement will

11
12

continue to provide, to the extent they currently do so, release dates of Amici’s clients

13

in a wide range of circumstances involving all serious crimes against persons and

14

property. These crimes include virtually every serious crime any one may be convicted
15
16

of in California. Cities and police departments throughout California as a matter of

17

policy already provide less information to DHS than SB 54 contemplates. The level of

18

cooperation with ICE SB 54 allows is far more than the limited way in which federal
19
20

law requires cooperation as set forth in 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (local jurisdictions must

21

respond to requests for citizenship and immigration status of a named individual).

22
23

Before SB 54 was enacted, when Amici’s clients were arrested and taken before

24

a magistrate on a charge involving a serious crime, and the magistrate made a finding

25

of probable cause, law enforcement officials could and sometimes would cooperate

26
27
28

with immigration officials. With the enactment of California Government Code §
7282.5(b), this will not change much for Amici’s clients. Law enforcement officials

- 10 -

.

1
2

may and do continue to cooperate with immigration officials when an Amici client is
arrested and a probable cause determination is made by a judge or magistrate regarding

3
4
5
6

the commission of a serious crime.
8 U.S.C. §1373 does not mandate that local law enforcement officials provide
ICE information about Amici’s clients’ release dates.

7
8
9
10
11

In a wide range of situations throughout California, both before and after the
enactment of SB 54, cities and counties and their law enforcement agencies have opted
for various levels of cooperation with ICE. 1

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1 See e.g. Santa Ana: Ordinance No. NS-2908, Dec. 20, 2016, Sec. 6 (“No City
agency, department, officer, employee, or agent shall use City funds, resources,
facilities, property, equipment, or personnel to assist in the enforcement of federal
immigration law, unless such assistance is required by any valid and enforceable
federal or state law or is contractually obligated. Nothing in this Section shall prevent
the City, including any agency, department, officer, employee, or agent of the City,
from lawfully discharging his or her duties in compliance with and in response to a
lawfully issued judicial warrant or subpoena.”), at http://voiceofoc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2017/01/Santa-Ana-sanctuary-city-ordinance-adopted.pdf; Oakland
City Council Resolution No. 87036, January 16, 2018: Clarifying And Reaffirming
Policy On Non-Cooperation With ICE, ("[T]he City of Oakland's policy is that: OPD
shall not provide law enforcement assistance, including traffic support, to ICE ,
including any subdivision of ICE, in any capacity, except to respond to a public safety
emergency") available at https://oakland.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=
F&ID=5761718&GUID=27F9C496-CDF9-4AAE-B0BC-DF2DB54D6DC9; San
Francisco Administrative Code §§12H-12I (Immigration Status and Civil Immigration
Detainers); Los Angeles: Executive Directive 20 ("The City will not assist or cooperate
with any effort by federal immigration agents to use public facilities or resources for
the purposes of enforcing federal civil immigration law."), available
at https://www.lamayor.org/sites/g/files/wph446/f/page/file/Exec.%20Dir.%20No.%20
20--Standing%20with%20Immigrants.pdf. All links last checked May 18, 2018.

- 11 -

.

1
2

At bottom, these local decisions are based on an assessment of the extent to
which greater cooperation with ICE decreases the reporting of serious crimes and

3
4

cooperation with law enforcement in prosecuting criminals. Studies show, for example,

5

that immigrant survivors of domestic violence and human trafficking overwhelmingly

6

(78%) are afraid to report crimes to the police given current immigration enforcement

7
8
9

policies and entanglement of local law enforcement and federal immigration
2

enforcement. An April 2017 survey by the Luskin School of Public Affairs at UCLA

10
11
12
13

found that 80% of Latino residents said that contact with any government agency or
3

program increases the risk of deportation. Even before the recent surge in immigration
enforcement, a 2013 study found that more than 40% of Latinos surveyed in Los

14
15

Angeles were “less likely to volunteer information about crimes because they fear

16

getting caught in the web of immigration enforcement themselves or bringing

17
18

unwanted attention to their family or friends”—regardless of their immigration status.

4

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

2 Asian Pacific Institute on Gender-Based Violence (APIGBV), et al., 2017 Advocate
and Legal Service Survey Regarding Immigrant Survivors, June 1, 2017, at
https://www.tahirih.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/2017-Advocate-and-LegalService-Survey-Key-Findings.pdf.
3 Mike McPhate: California Today: Worries Over Deportation, N.Y. TIMES, April 5,
2017, https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/05/us/california-today-worries-overdeportation.html.

26
27
28

4 Nik Theodore, Insecure Communities: Latino Perceptions of Police Involvement in
Immigration Enforcement, Univ. Ill. at Chicago, 7 (May 2013),
https://greatcities.uic.edu/wpcontent/uploads/2014/05/Insecure_Communities_Report_
FINAL.pdf.
- 12 -

.

1
2

Based on their own localized law enforcement experiences, and numerous
studies that assess the drop in crime reporting as entanglement with ICE enforcement

3
4

increases, cities and counties throughout California (and the country) have made local

5

decisions on the extent to which they will become involved in ICE activities. SB 54

6

actually leaves local entities free to cooperate with ICE on matters impacting Amici’s

7
8
9
10

clients to a far greater extent than required by federal law.
With regards accessing data about Amici’s clients, with or without SB 54, ICE
has access to state and regional criminal justice networks and databases, including the

11
12

National Crime Information Center (NCIC), that allow law enforcement agencies to

13

identify individuals who have been arrested and convicted. NCIC is a Federal Bureau

14

of Investigation (FBI) database containing “an electronic clearinghouse of crime data

15
16

that can be tapped into by virtually every criminal justice agency nationwide, 24 hours

17

a day, 365 days a year.” National Crime Information Center (NCIC) (Federal Bureau

18
19

of Investigation), https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ncic. 5 Fingerprints of an Amici

20

client taken at booking on criminal charges are checked automatically against the FBI

21

and DHS databases. This biometric data is also sent to ICE. All wanted person’s

22
23
24

inquiries automatically will also be run through the Immigration Violators File (IVF).
If there’s a match, ICE is alerted.

25
26
27
28

5 NCIC serves more than 90,000 criminal justice and law enforcement agencies, along
with judges, prosecutors, corrections officers, court administrators, and a variety of
other criminal justice officials by providing information that can help apprehend
fugitives, locate missing persons, identify convicted sexual offenders, uncover
weapons used in crimes, locate and return stolen property, and more.
- 13 -

.

1
2

ICE may request release dates for Amici clients held in custody, but nothing in
federal law requires a local jurisdiction to respond to such a request. Most local

3
4

jurisdictions already provide release dates to ICE if a serious crime was involved and

5

nothing in SB 54 will change that.

6

SB 54 also provides that local authorities should not investigate, interrogate,

7
8

detain, detect, or arrest persons, including Amici’s clients, “for immigration

9

enforcement purposes, including… Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold

10

request.” California Government Code § 7284.6(a)(1)(B). This provision of SB 54

11
12

does not interfere with the federal government’s ability to collect information

13

regarding the immigration and citizenship status of Amici’s clients, the sole federally-

14

imposed requirement under 8 U.S.C. § 1373. Hold requests have repeatedly been found
15
16

unconstitutional by the federal courts and therefore Amici is unaware of any

17

jurisdiction in California that honored hold requests before SB 54 was enacted or

18

honors since it was enacted.6

19

IV. CONCLUSION

20
21

As discussed above, when the impact of the federal and relevant state laws on

22
23

California residents are carefully examined, it becomes clear that in the operation of

24

these laws, there is no conflict between the challenged California statutes, and federal

25

law. Implementation of AB 450, AB 103, and SB 54 is going forward without

26
27
28

violating any federal laws regarding immigration enforcement.
6

See, e.g., Duncan Roy et al. v. County of Los Angeles et. al, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
27268 (C.D. Cal. 2018); see also Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 387 (2012).
- 14 -

.

1
2

If President Trump and Attorney General Jeffrey Sessions are unhappy with the
extent to which many states, counties and cities have taken steps to protect their

3
4

residents’ safety and well-being by limiting cooperation with ICE’s enforcement

5

activities, they should go to Congress and seek stronger federal laws requiring greater

6

cooperation by local jurisdictions with ICE’s immigration enforcement actions.

7
8
9
10

The challenged California statutes provide a floor for local entities to follow in
their involvement with ICE enforcement operations. That floor is far below the ceiling
created by what federal law requires of local entities.

11
12

Instead of seeking a change in federal law, President Trump and Attorney

13

General Sessions have threatened local jurisdictions with funding cuts and in this case

14

are asking the Court to involve itself in a dispute they should take to Congress to
15
16
17

resolve.
The challenged California statutes serve to protect California immigrants

18

without violating or conflicting with any federal laws regarding the role local entities
19
20

must play in ICE enforcement functions. As long as ICE complies with the federal

21

laws that govern its functions, implementation of AB 450, AB 103, and SB 54 will in

22
23
24

no way interfere with ICE’s achievement of its enforcement goals.
Dated: May 18, 2018

Respectfully submitted,

25

CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS &
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
Peter A. Schey
Carlos Holguín
/s/Peter Schey
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

26
27
28

- 15 -

.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

I, Peter Schey, declare and say as follows:
I am over eighteen years of age and am not a party to this action. I am employed
in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. My business address is 256 S.
Occidental Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90057, in said county and state. 

On May 18, 2018, I electronically filed the following document(s):
• LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS AMICI CURIAE BRIEF

9
10
11
12

with the United States District Court, Eastern District of California by using the
CM/ECF system. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be
served by the CM/ECF system.

13

/s/__Peter Schey_____
Attorneys for Proposed Amici

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

LEGAL SERVICES PROVIDERS AMICI BRIEF

1