FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, No. 18-16496 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. v. 2:18-cv-00490- JAM-KJN STATE OF CALIFORNIA; GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor of California; XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General OPINION of California, Defendants-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted March 13, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed April 18, 2019 Before: MILAN D. SMITH, JR., PAUL J. WATFORD, and ANDREW D. HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. 2 UNITED STATES V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA SUMMARY * Immigration In a case in which the United States sought to enjoin the enforcement of three laws California enacted expressly to protect its residents from federal immigration enforcement, the panel affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial in large part of the United States’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The United States challenged three California laws: AB 450, which—as relevant to this appeal—requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections; AB 103, which imposes inspection requirements on facilities that house civil immigration detainees; and SB 54, which limits the cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The United States sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that these laws violated the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and the doctrine of conflict preemption. The district court concluded that the United States was unlikely to succeed on the merits of many of its claims, and so denied in large part the motion for a preliminary injunction. With respect to AB 450, which requires employers to alert employees before federal immigration inspections, the panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a preliminary * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. UNITED STATES V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA 3 injunction. The panel rejected the United States’ contention that the provisions are invalid under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity and the doctrine of conflict preemption, concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it concluded that AB 450’s employee- notice provisions neither burden the federal government nor conflict with federal activities. With respect to AB 103, which imposes inspection requirements on facilities that house civil immigration detainees, the panel affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to those provisions of AB 103 that duplicate inspection requirements otherwise mandated under California law and are imposed on state and local detention facilities. However, the panel concluded that one subsection of AB 103—California Government Code section 12532(b)(1)(C), which requires examination of the circumstances surrounding the apprehension and transfer of immigration detainees—discriminates against and impermissibly burdens the federal government, and so is unlawful under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity. Specifically, the panel concluded that the district court erred by relying on a de minimis exception to the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity in analyzing this provision. The panel concluded that Supreme Court case ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals