For many years now, California has been a leftist stronghold. And its Ninth Circuit Appeals Court has historically sided with Democrats, in a variety of topics ranging from crime to the economy.
California has also been proud of its “sanctuary state” position, as they’ve played host to hundreds of thousands of undocumented residents in recent years.
However, the state’s high court just made a big decision — and it may come as a surprise to many.
Despite some recent reports that California is struggling on several important fronts, the seem reluctant to change their leadership. Democrats traditionally hold sway, and that fact continues today.
They also continue to voice support for illegal immigrants, which is why the state passed a law that tried to close down most detention centers.
The problem is that this law apparently circumvents the Supreme Court, which the Ninth Circuit federal court just couldn’t allow.
The Ninth Circuit federal appeals court, one of the most liberal courts in the nation, struck down a California law that sought to close most of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities holding illegal aliens.
Sitting en banc, the Ninth Circuit found that California’s AB 32 — passed in 2019 and meant to close effectively all ICE detention facilities across the sanctuary state — violates the Supremacy Clause by flouting federal immigration law.
Initially, the law was struck down by a three-judge panel. At the time, however, this move was erased by the Ninth Circuit so the case could be re-heard by all 11 judges.
That didn’t change the outcome, though.
In an 8-3 decision, the court cited the “significant fluctuations in the population of noncitizens who are detained, and other challenges unique to California.”
As such, ICE “relies almost exclusively on privately operated detention facilities in the state to maintain flexibility. AB 32 would stop these from running, which could’ve caused serious problems.
Beyond that, however, there’s the issue of the Supreme Court law. As the court stated:
AB 32 would override the federal government’s decision, pursuant to discretion conferred by Congress, to use private contractors to run its immigration detention facilities.
It would give California a “virtual power of review” over ICE’s detention decisions, and allow the “discretion of the federal officers [to] be exercised . . . only if the [state] approves.
AB 32 therefore violates the Supremacy Clause.
The decision was celebrated by Republicans and Conservatives across the state, as well as the Immigration Reform Law Institute (IRLI).
IRLI member Dale Wilcox applauded the ruling, saying that AB 32 was “unconstitutional” and that no state should be allowed to interfere with or cancel federal immigration law.
California wasn’t the only state that tried to ban ICE prisons; other deep blue states like New York, Illinois, Washington, and New Jersey attempted to get rid of the detention centers for undocumented individuals.
But in the end, such maneuvers run counter to federal law — and even the Ninth Circuit in California can’t ignore it.
The border crisis remains in full swing according to various Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE reports, and some southern states have dubbed the mess a full-on “invasion.”
- The Ninth Circuit court in California struck down a law that tried to ban ICE detention centers.
- The 8-3 decision concluded that the ban went against Supreme Court and immigration law.
- Immigration Reform Law Institute member Dale Wilcox applauded the decision, calling the original law “unconstitutional.”