## Facts

- California enacted three 2017 statutes limiting state involvement in federal civil immigration enforcement and regulating related state concerns.
- SB 54 restricted state and local law-enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including limits on sharing certain nonpublic information and on transferring detainees except in specified circumstances.
- AB 103 directed the California Attorney General to inspect immigration detention facilities in the state for conditions of confinement, standard of care, and due process.
- AB 450 regulated private employers by, among other things, requiring advance notice to employees of certain federal immigration inspections of employment records and limiting voluntary access to nonpublic work areas and records absent specified legal process.
- The United States sued California and state officials, alleging the statutes were preempted under the Supremacy Clause and, in part, violated intergovernmental immunity.
- The district court largely denied a preliminary injunction but enjoined portions of one statute; the United States appealed the preliminary-injunction rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether the United States showed a likelihood of success that SB 54 is preempted as an impermissible obstacle to federal immigration enforcement.
2. Whether the United States showed a likelihood of success that relevant AB 450 provisions are preempted or otherwise unlawfully burden federal operations.
3. Whether the United States showed a likelihood of success that AB 103 impermissibly discriminates against or directly burdens the federal government in violation of intergovernmental immunity.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to SB 54, holding that limiting state assistance to federal immigration enforcement was not preempted.
- The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to the challenged employee-notice provisions of AB 450, concluding they did not conflict with federal law or unlawfully burden federal activities.
- The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction as to most of AB 103, to the extent it reflected state inspection authority over detention conditions within California.
- The court reversed in part and remanded with instructions to preliminarily enjoin enforcement of Cal. Gov’t Code § 12532(b)(1)(C), a subsection of AB 103 requiring scrutiny of circumstances surrounding apprehension and transfer of immigration detainees, as unconstitutional under intergovernmental immunity.

## Legal Principles

- Under the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering rule, a state may decline to use its officers or resources to assist federal enforcement; non-cooperation is not itself unlawful obstruction.
- Supremacy Clause preemption requires more than federal frustration; state choices about their own enforcement priorities are generally permissible absent conflicting commands or direct regulation of federal operations.
- Intergovernmental immunity bars states from discriminating against the federal government or imposing burdens on federal operations that are not imposed on comparable state-regulated actors.
- State regulation that principally governs private parties and does not prevent federal officers from performing federally authorized activities is less likely to be preempted or to violate intergovernmental immunity.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit largely left California’s immigration-related statutes in effect at the preliminary-injunction stage, holding that California could limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and regulate private employers and detention conditions, but it required an injunction against a specific AB 103 inspection criterion that singled out and burdened federal immigration detention operations.


United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019)