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.).

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
[e-mail]
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
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