United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 99

MOTION for LEAVE to FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF by City of Los Angeles. Attorney Trivedi, Harit Upendra added. (Attachments: # 1 Amicus Curiae Brief, # 2 Proposed Order)(Trivedi, Harit) Modified on 5/21/2018 (Benson, A.).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 MICHAEL N. FEUER, SBN 111529 City Attorney JAMES P. CLARK, SBN 64780 Chief Deputy City Attorney LEELA A. KAPUR, SBN 125548 Executive Assistant City Attorney VALERIE L. FLORES, SBN 138572 Managing Assistant City Attorney HARIT U. TRIVEDI, SBN 217282 Deputy City Attorney STREFAN FAUBLE, SBN 247653 Deputy City Attorney 200 North Main St., City Hall East Suite 800 Los Angeles, California 90012 Harit.Trivedi@lacity.org Telephone: (213) 978-7100 Facsimile: (213) 978-8250 Attorneys for Proposed Amicus Curiae City of Los Angeles 11 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 13 14 15 16 THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN Plaintiff, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES IN OPPOSITION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; EDMUND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California, in his official capacity; and Hearing Date: June 20, 2018 XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m. California, in his official capacity, Location: Courtroom 6 Defendants. Judge: Honorable John A. Mendez Action Filed: March 6, 2018 v. 25 26 27 28 CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1 Pursuant to this Court’s Order regarding Amicus briefing, dated March 27, 2018 (ECF No. 2 3 37), and Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, the City of Los Angeles (“City” or 4 “Los Angeles”) hereby requests leave to file the accompanying Amicus Curiae Brief in 5 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.1 6 Los Angeles has unique interests in this case. Los Angeles is the largest city in the State 7 of California and is home to more immigrants and immigrant families than any other city in the 8 State. For over forty years, the City has decided that the public safety of all its residents, 9 including its large and diverse immigrant communities, is best served through policing policies 10 that restrict the role of Los Angeles Police Department (“LAPD”) officers in enforcing 11 immigration laws. The State is exercising the same judgment in pursuit of the same goals in 12 Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”). Assembly Bill 450 (“AB 450”) and Assembly Bill 103 (“AB 103”) 13 also serve to foster trust between immigrant communities and their local leaders. 14 Plaintiff’s Motion, if granted, would have a significant, direct, negative impact on the 15 City’s relationship with its immigrant communities, the policies of the LAPD, and the public 16 safety of those who live and work in Los Angeles. Los Angeles’ proposed amicus brief 17 highlights constitutional, statutory and policy reasons why SB 54, AB 450 and AB 103 should not 18 be enjoined. ARGUMENT 19 Los Angeles submits its amicus brief to provide the Court with the City’s unique 20 21 perspective on the facts and law relevant to Plaintiff’s Motion. The Court’s ruling in this case 22 would have a significant impact on Los Angeles because of the large number of immigrants who 23 live and work here. Los Angeles in many ways is a city of immigrants. Nearly 4 million people 24 live within the city limits. Approximately 1.5 million of these residents are immigrants – 37.8% 25 of the City’s total population.2 These immigrants and their communities comprise an essential 26 1 27 28 No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part and no person or entity, other than amicus curiae, its members or its counsel, has contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief. 2 U.S. Census Bureau, Place of Birth by Nativity and Citizenship Status, 2012-2016 American 1 CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 1 part of the City’s social fabric. City leaders have a strong interest in protecting the rights, 2 maintaining the cooperation and trust, and securing the public safety of this large segment of its 3 population. 4 Los Angeles’ voice is of particular importance here because the City, for decades, has 5 implemented trust-based policing policies in its immigrant communities. Nearly forty years ago, 6 in 1979, the LAPD adopted a formal policy restricting LAPD officers from initiating police action 7 based on immigration status. Since then, Los Angeles has adopted numerous other policing 8 strategies based on the principle that trust is built and public safety best served when the City’s 9 police officers are not involved in the enforcement of federal civil immigration laws. 10 Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”) is based on the same principle – that “a relationship of trust 11 between California’s immigrant community and state and local agencies is central to the public 12 safety of the people of California.” Cal. Gov. Code § 7284.2(b). SB 54’s regulations 13 demonstrate that the State shares Los Angeles’ interest in improving trust and public safety by 14 minimizing the entanglement of local police in federal immigration enforcement. Cal. Gov. Code 15 §§ 7284.6(a)(1)(C) & (D); 7284.6(a)(4). 16 Los Angeles’ experience has been that policing policies based on trust, like those 17 embodied in SB 54, improve cooperation between local police and immigrant communities and 18 reduce crime for all residents. As detailed in the amicus brief, in the past forty years since 19 adopting its initial immigration-related policies, Los Angeles has seen crime rates plummet to 20 record lows. At the same time, LAPD officers have benefited from the cooperation of witnesses 21 and victims of crime in the City’s immigrant communities. These positive trends will not 22 continue if LAPD officers are seen as agents of federal immigration authorities. 23 Plaintiff’s Motion, if granted, could entangle LAPD officers in the enforcement of federal 24 immigration laws and threaten the relationship of trust the City has built painstakingly over the 25 years. Invalidating AB 450 and AB 103 also would risk eroding the trust between immigrant 26 communities and their local leaders. 27 Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_16_5YR _B05002&prodType=table 2 28 CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 1 Los Angeles’ amicus brief also draws from the City’s experience in focusing on several 2 discrete legal arguments against Plaintiff’s Motion: (1) SB 54 represents a constitutionally 3 protected exercise of the State’s police powers, especially considering that local law enforcement 4 decisions are part of the core powers over which state and local government retain sovereignty 5 vis-à-vis the federal government; (2) SB 54 is protected under the Tenth Amendment’s anti- 6 commandeering doctrine; (3) SB 54 expressly allows the LAPD and other local police 7 departments to share information in their possession regarding an individual’s immigration status, 8 precisely what federal immigration statutes require; and (4) SB 54 does not conflict with any 9 other unmistakably clear enforcement mandates of federal immigration law sufficient to justify 10 upending the constitutionally protected decisions of local law enforcement officials regarding 11 local public safety. CONCLUSION 12 13 14 15 16 For the foregoing reasons, Los Angeles respectfully requests leave to file the accompanying amicus brief in opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Dated: May 18, 2018 Respectfully submitted, MICHAEL N. FEUER, City Attorney 17 18 19 20 By: /s/Harit U. Trivedi HARIT U. TRIVEDI Deputy City Attorney Attorneys for Amicus Curiae City of Los Angeles 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2 3 4 5 6 7 I hereby certify on May 18, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief of the City of Los Angeles in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and accompanying Amicus Curiae Brief of the City of Los Angeles, with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California by using the CM/ECF system. Notice of this filing will be sent by mail to anyone unable to accept electronic filing. 8 9 10 11 Dated: May 18, 2018 /s/Harit U. Trivedi HARIT U. TRIVEDI Deputy City Attorney 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 CITY OF LOS ANGELES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?