Sacramento Judge Puts the Jeff Sessions Suit Against California on Trial
The hearing, more than five hours long, resembled a trial at times. Mendez dove into minute details of the case, asking lawyers for relevant case law, citing arguments in the numerous amicus briefs, questioning the severability of provisions in each statute and quizzing the sides with long lists of what appeared to be prepared questions.
June 20, 2018 at 06:39 PM
4 minute read
A federal judge in Sacramento repeatedly pressed the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday to explain how California's so-called sanctuary laws improperly hamper federal immigration enforcement.
U.S. District Judge John Mendez of the Eastern District of California peppered the government's legal team, led by Chad Readler, with a range of questions exploring the interplay between California's laws and federal power.
The hearing, more than five hours long, resembled more of a trial at times than an injunction hearing. Mendez dove into minute details of the case, asking lawyers for relevant case law, citing arguments from the many amicus briefs, questioning the severability of provisions in state statutes and quizzing the sides with long lists of what appeared to be prepared questions.
The Justice Department wants, among other things, Mendez to strike down a California law that allows the state attorney general to inspect federal detention facilities. Federal officials, who sued the state in March, say the measure unlawfully intrudes on their immigration enforcement duties.
State visits to facilities, records reviews and conversations with employees and detainees do “not affect your client's decisions on who is and isn't removable,” Mendez told Readler, the acting head of the Justice Department's Civil Division and a Trump nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. “This is just a review, right?”
Readler argued the presence of a state prosecutor alone diverts the time and attention of facility staff.
“What is the burden?” Mendez asked, noting that the state has already inspected five of nine detention centers under the new law and neither the federal government nor their facility contractors sought a court order to block the state attorney general's entrance.
“It's just a review,” the judge said. “It adds transparency to a process. In my view, more transparency is better when we deal with the government.”
The Justice Department's lawsuit challenges three laws California adopted last year in response to the Trump administration's broad crackdown against immigration. U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions is seeking a preliminary injunction, arguing that California's laws infringe the federal role enforcing immigration laws.
The legal dispute crystalizes the political battle between California and Trump, with the state acting as the West Coast blue resistance to a Republican federal government that wants major changes to immigration policy.
California laws now require employers to bar federal immigration agents from private workplace sites unless they have a warrant. Another law, which has generated opposition from several sheriffs and police chiefs, limits state and local agencies' cooperation with immigration officials in certain circumstances.
“This whole case in many ways is the state saying, 'We're not going along with this anymore,'” Mendez said at one point during the hearing. “'We're not participating and there's nothing you can do about it.'”
Mendez had tough questions for state lawyers about a state law that threatens employers with fines if they allow federal agents to conduct immigration sweeps in non-public work sites.
“The statute really puts an employer between a rock and a hard place,” he said. Companies face civil penalties for not complying with state laws and criminal sanctions if they knowingly employee undocumented workers.
“It seems inherently unfair to me that the state of California can put an employer in that position,” Mendez said.
Arguing for the state, Deputy Attorney General Christine Chuang said she disagreed “with the underlying premise” that employers would always choose to cooperate with warrantless inspections by federal immigration agents.
Mendez told the parties he had no inclination to limit the record in a case that will be appealed by one side or the other.
The broad interest in the case led the court to open two overflow courtrooms for reporters, the public and representatives of the many interest groups that had filed amicus briefs. “We may be the last ones left in the courtroom,” Mendez joked at one point, hours into the hearing.
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAs AI-Generated Fraud Rises, Financial Companies Face a Long Cybersecurity Battle
Insurers Dodge Sherwin-Williams' Claim for $102M Lead Paint Abatement Payment, State High Court Rules
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250