Diverse, Nationwide Group of State and Local Governments, Organizations and Legal Experts Support California’s Defense Against Federal Overreach in USA v. California

Amicus briefs support California’s opposition to the federal government’s lawsuit seeking to bar implementation of three California laws

SACRAMENTO – Today a diverse group of states, counties, and cities from across the nation – as well as California State Senators, former law enforcement officials and prosecutors, labor unions, faith leaders and immigrant rights groups –filed seventeen separate amicus briefs in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in support of California’s opposition to a preliminary injunction filed by the federal government in United States v. California. The federal government’s request, filed on March 6, seeks to bar implementation of three California laws that provide for the safety, welfare and privacy of its residents. 

On May 4, 2018, the California Attorney General moved to dismiss the lawsuit and opposed the federal government’s request that California be prohibited from enforcing the three state laws while this lawsuit is pending. Attorney General Becerra asserts that the federal government’s lawsuit seeks to undermine the State’s sovereign authority to safeguard its residents’ safety, privacy, and constitutional rights. 

“California’s laws work in concert – and do not conflict – with federal laws and are fully constitutional,” said Attorney General Becerra. “States have the right to ensure the safety and well-being of their residents. We will not be bullied by this lawsuit. Rather than trying to compel state and local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration enforcement, the federal government should support California’s choice to focus its limited resources on improving public safety for all Californians.  It’s gratifying to see the outpouring of support for California. I look forward to arguing our claims in court.”

Amicus briefs were filed by: a multi-state coalition led by the District of Columbia; a California multi-county and multi-city coalition led by Oakland, Santa Clara and Los Angeles Counties; the California State Senate; a nationwide multi-county and multi-city coalition led by New York City, the City of Los Angeles and the City and County of San Francisco; public interest organizations, including the Immigration Law Resource Center and Human Rights Watch, the National Immigration Law Center, Anti-Defamation League, Tahirih Justice Center, and the National Health Law Program; and labor unions, including the California State Federation of Labor and SEIU. Briefs were also filed by numerous constitutional and immigration law professors, former prosecutors and law enforcement officers, and a large and diverse group of religious leaders.

In its opposition to the federal government’s motion for a preliminary injunction, California argued that the state laws being challenged are all consistent with the Immigration and Naturalization Act and do not undermine the federal government’s ability to enforce federal immigration laws. It also detailed the harms that would result from an injunction, if granted, including the erosion of trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, detrimental impacts on workplace productivity, and the inhumane treatment of people in civil detention facilities.