Supreme Court's embrace of states' rights could aid California in its battle with the Trump administration
The
Supreme Court decision upholding states' rights to offer sports betting
was backed mostly by conservative justices, but it may also give a
boost to California and other liberal states that are defying the Trump
administration's drive for stricter immigration enforcement.
At
issue on both fronts — sports betting and immigration — is whether
Washington can require states to accept a federal policy, or instead,
whether they are free to go their own way.
Monday's high-court opinion trumpeted the independence of the states.
The
court struck down a federal law on sports wagering based on the
constitutional principle that the federal government may not
"commandeer" states and force them to carry out federal directives. The
law did not make sports betting a federal crime, but instead told states
they may not authorize the practice under their laws.
Under
President Obama and other Democratic presidents, conservatives
frequently invoked states' rights to block liberal measures coming out
of Washington. Not surprisingly since President Trump's election,
states' rights have been the first line of defense for the liberal
states.
Legal
experts say the court's strong endorsement of states and their
independent role will surely play a role in the legal battles over
immigration and so-called sanctuary cities. At issue there is whether
states must cooperate with the federal government in detaining
immigrants who are in the country illegally.
Ilya
Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme
Court's decision in New Jersey's challenge to the sports-betting law
"will be directly relevant" to how the courts decide the issue of
sanctuary cities. The majority opinion by conservative Justice Samuel A.
Alito Jr. "signals the justices are serious about the
anti-commandeering rule and are suspicious of attempts to circumvent
it."
But
others noted that Alito and his colleagues gave no direct hint of how
they would decide a case involving immigration enforcement or sanctuary
cities. The Constitution makes federal law the "supreme law of the
land," Alito said, but this does not include the power "to issue direct
orders to the states."
"The
anti-commandeering doctrine may sound arcane," Alito explained in
Murphy vs. NCAA, "but it is simply the expression of a fundamental
structural decision incorporated into the Constitution, the decision to
withhold from Congress the power to issue orders directly to the
states."
In
the past, the court has said states and local officials may not be
required to carry out a federal regulatory policy. In 1997, for example,
the court said county sheriffs in Montana could not be forced to
conduct background checks for gun buyers as required under the Brady
Handgun Act. Alito cited that ruling.
Alito's
opinion went a step further and said states may adopt "offending
proposals" that contradict federal law. There was no question, he said,
that New Jersey lawmakers had "authorized" betting on sports, even
though federal law forbade them from doing so. Nonetheless, he said, the
Constitution protects the states' right to make that choice.
Otherwise
it is "as if federal officers were installed in state legislative
chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from
voting on any offending proposals," he wrote. "A more direct affront to
state sovereignty is not easy to imagine."
These words are likely to be cited in two immigration cases pending in California.
In
March, Atty. Gen. Jeff Sessions went to Sacramento to announce he was
suing California for adopting three laws that "reflect a deliberate
effort … to obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws."
"I
understand that we have a wide variety of political opinions out there
on immigration. But the law is in the books, and its purposes are clear
and just," Sessions said in a speech to the California Peace Officers'
Assn., referring to the federal laws. "There is no nullification. There
is no secession. Federal law is the supreme law of the land."
He
objected to a law that authorizes California officials to inspect
immigration facilities where non-citizens are being held. A second state
law limits how much information state and local officials will provide
to federal agents concerning immigrants who are in custody. A third
measure, probably the most controversial, forbids private employers from
cooperating with federal immigration agents.
Sessions
wants a federal judge to strike down all three laws because they are an
"obstacle to the United States' enforcement of the immigration laws."
The
federal-state conflict is also at issue in a suit over sanctuary cities
and federal funds. Last year, the state sued Sessions for seeking to
deny some law enforcement funding to sanctuary cities. The state said
the Justice Department had no authority to add extra conditions to
federal spending laws.
UC
Davis law school Dean Kevin Johnson said the court's opinion in the New
Jersey case gives support to California's legal claims, but it does not
ensure they will prevail. "An argument can be made that the Trump
administration, through executive order and otherwise, is attempting to
commandeer state institutions in the name of immigration enforcement,"
he said. Alito's opinion "will offer support to the arguments that
[California] Atty. Gen. [Xavier] Becerra is making in the sanctuary
litigation."
The
court's endorsement of states' rights was notable also because none of
the justices, on the right or left, disagreed with the principle that
Congress could not dictate to the states. Liberal Justice Elena Kagan
joined Alito's opinion in full, as did Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.
and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch.
Three
others — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen G.
Breyer — would have upheld the ban on sports betting, but only because a
separate part of the law also forbade individuals from sponsoring
sports betting.
Trump administration picks new fight with California
© Getty Images
The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
LLC 501C- 4 UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Content
and Programming Copyright 2018 By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network © LLC UCC 1-308.ALL RIGHTS RESERVED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE All copyrights reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network Copyright 2018 CQ-Roll Call, Inc. All materials
herein are protected by United States copyright law and may not be
reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast
without the prior written permission of CQ-Roll Call. You may not alter
or remove any trademark, copyright or other notice from copies of the
content. © All Copyrights Reserved By Patcnews The Patriot Conservative
News Tea Party Network
No comments:
Post a Comment