The Supremacy Clause: Is Sb 54 Constitutional?

The California Senate Bill 54, also known as the California Values Act or the sanctuary state bill, was passed in 2017. The bill prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to assist federal immigration enforcement agencies. The only exception is in cases of violent illegal immigrants. The bill was passed in response to President Trump's initiative to oppose sanctuary cities and increase deportations. Since its passing, there has been much debate over its constitutionality, with some arguing that it is unconstitutional as immigration is a function of the federal government. However, a legal challenge by the federal government was unsuccessful, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$237.48 $359

Constitutional Law: Principles and Polices (Aspen Treatise)

$97.38 $126.95

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$305

Constitutional Law: a QuickStudy Laminated Reference Guide

$8.32 $8.95

An Introduction to Constitutional Law: 100+ Supreme Court Cases Everyone Should Know

$26 $34.95

Constitutional Law For Dummies

$18 $29.99

California Senate Bill 54 prevents state and local law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws

The California Senate Bill 54, also known as the California Values Act, prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to assist federal immigration enforcement agencies. The bill was signed into law on October 5, 2017, and went into effect on January 1, 2018.

Under this bill, law enforcement officials cannot ask about an individual's immigration status, arrest individuals based solely on deportation orders or other immigration violations, or use Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Border Patrol agents as interpreters. Additionally, law enforcement cannot share personal information, such as home addresses, with ICE or Border Patrol unless it is publicly available. They also cannot hold individuals in jail for extra time to await pickup by immigration agents or allow interviews without written consent.

The bill ensures that schools, hospitals, and courthouses are safe spaces for everyone, regardless of immigration status. It encourages organisations providing services related to physical or mental health, education, or access to justice to adopt similar policies.

The bill allows for cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement in cases involving violent illegal immigrants. However, it has been criticised for potentially hindering law enforcement's ability to enforce immigration laws and keep communities safe. There have been incidents where individuals with a history of deportation were released under the new sanctuary law and subsequently committed violent crimes.

The constitutionality of the California Senate Bill 54 has been challenged. In March 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against California, arguing that the bill and similar laws aimed at reducing cooperation with federal immigration authorities were unconstitutional. However, the lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge who found no indication that Congress intended to prevent states from having oversight over detention facilities within their borders. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Federal law takes priority over state law, per the Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause, which is among the Constitution's most significant structural provisions, establishes that federal law takes priority over state law. This principle is often taken for granted today, but it was not always so clear-cut. During the ratification period, Anti-Federalists objected to the idea that federal statutes and treaties could override aspects of each state's constitution and bill of rights. However, advocates of federal supremacy prevailed, and the Constitution was ratified in 1788 with the Supremacy Clause included.

The core message of the Supremacy Clause is that the Constitution, federal laws, and treaties made under the authority of the United States are the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that judges in every state are bound by these laws, regardless of any conflicting rules in the constitution or laws of a state. In other words, when there is a conflict between federal and state law, federal law wins, and state law is preempted. This was further reinforced by a series of early-twentieth-century Supreme Court decisions, which developed a precursor to the doctrine of field preemption—the principle that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting any laws regulating the same general subject.

The Supremacy Clause played a crucial role in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, as the Supreme Court relied on it to establish a robust role for the federal government in managing the nation's affairs. The Court invoked the Clause to conclude that federal treaties and statutes superseded inconsistent state laws. This continued throughout the latter half of the nineteenth century, with the Court applying the foundational principle that federal law prevailed over conflicting state law.

In the specific case of California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), also known as the "California Values Act" or the "sanctuary state" bill, the federal government challenged the constitutionality of the law. SB 54 prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies and is often referred to as a "sanctuary law." The federal government argued that SB 54 and similar laws aimed at reducing cooperation with federal immigration authorities were unconstitutional. However, the lawsuit was dismissed by a judge who found no indication that Congress intended for states to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

The Supremacy Clause establishes the Constitution as the supreme Law of the Land

The Supremacy Clause, part of Article VI of the US Constitution, establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made under it, and all treaties made by the US, are the supreme law of the land. This means that federal law takes precedence over state law in the event of a conflict. The Supremacy Clause was included in the Constitution as a response to the lack of a similar provision in the Articles of Confederation, which led to situations where federal statutes did not bind state courts without state legislation implementing them.

The Supremacy Clause has been interpreted and applied by the Supreme Court throughout US history to reinforce the priority of federal law over state law. For example, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the Supreme Court relied on the Clause to establish a prominent role for the federal government in managing national affairs. The Court's decisions during this period reflected a doctrine of dual federalism, where the federal government and states had distinct and non-overlapping zones of constitutional authority.

In the early twentieth century, the Supreme Court issued a series of decisions that established the principle of field preemption, which holds that some federal legislation implicitly prevents states from adopting laws on the same subject. This further reinforced the Supremacy Clause's role in resolving conflicts between federal and state law.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the supremacy of federal law, it is important to note that it does not require each state to base all of its laws on federal statutes. States retain the authority to make laws that reflect their own policy judgments, even if they differ from federal statutes, as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution or federal laws made under it.

With regards to SB 54, the California Values Act or "sanctuary state" bill, the debate surrounding its constitutionality often centres around the Supremacy Clause. SB 54 prevents state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources to enforce federal immigration laws. Opponents of the bill argue that immigration is a constitutionally allocated function of the federal government and thus, SB 54 is unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. However, supporters of the bill counter that the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's SB 1070 demonstrates that states cannot create their own regulatory system in immigration law, but this does not prohibit SB 54 as it does not create a separate regulatory system. The federal government's legal challenge to SB 54 was unsuccessful in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, indicating that the bill does not directly conflict with federal law or the Supremacy Clause.

Explore related products

Constitutional Law [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$95 $345

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: Individual Rights (Examples & Explanations Series)

$76.95

A Short & Happy Guide to Constitutional Law

$28

Constitutional Law (University Casebook Series)

$298.7

Constitutional Law: [Connected eBook with Study Center] (Aspen Casebook)

$242.16 $359

Examples & Explanations for Constitutional Law: National Power and Federalism (Examples & Explanations Series)

$59.81 $76.95

Federal law can preempt state law expressly or impliedly

The preemption doctrine, derived from the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, states that federal law is "the supreme law of the land". This means that when a federal law conflicts with a state or local law, the federal law supersedes the other law or laws. This is known as "preemption".

The preemption doctrine applies regardless of whether the conflicting laws come from legislatures, courts, administrative agencies, or constitutions. For example, the Voting Rights Act, an act of Congress, preempts state constitutions, and FDA regulations may preempt state court judgments in cases involving prescription drugs.

Preemption can be express or implied. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes specific language in a statute that preempts state law. This usually involves a preemption clause in the statute. In the case of express preemption, the only question for courts is determining whether the challenged state law is one that the federal law is intended to preempt.

Implied preemption occurs when state and federal laws directly conflict with each other, or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate. In cases of implied preemption, courts typically find that compliance with both state and federal law is not possible, or that a federal regulatory scheme is comprehensive and should not be modified by state actions. For example, in Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Association, the Supreme Court ruled that federal laws governing hazardous waste preempted Illinois laws covering the same field, citing the vast body of federal regulations.

Courts have developed tests to determine when a state legislature has preempted a particular field. In Allied Vending Co. v Bowie (1993), the court issued a seven-part test to determine whether a state legislature has preempted a field by implication. This test considers factors such as whether local laws existed prior to the enactment of state laws on the same subject matter, whether the state expressly gives concurrent authority, and whether a 2-tiered regulatory process would engender chaos and confusion if local laws were not preempted.

In summary, federal law can preempt state law expressly or impliedly. Express preemption occurs when Congress includes specific language in a statute that preempts state law, while implied preemption occurs when state and federal laws directly conflict or when federal laws dominate a field that a state law seeks to regulate.

The Supremacy Clause does not create a cause of action

The Supremacy Clause, established under Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution, refers to the principle that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. It enables the federal government to enforce treaties, create a central bank, and enact legislation without interference from the states. However, it is important to note that the Supremacy Clause does not allow the federal government to review or veto state laws before they take effect.

While the Supremacy Clause establishes the primacy of federal law, it does not create a cause of action. This means that individuals cannot sue to enforce federal law through the Supremacy Clause. The Clause itself is not the source of any federal rights, and it does not provide a basis for legal claims. Instead, it outlines the hierarchy of laws, ensuring that federal laws take precedence over state laws when there is a conflict.

The Supremacy Clause plays a crucial role in maintaining the balance between federal and state powers. It ensures that when Congress legislates pursuant to its delegated powers, conflicting state laws or policies must yield. This was a significant improvement over the Articles of Confederation, which lacked a similar provision and resulted in federal statutes not binding state courts without implementing state legislation. The Supremacy Clause addresses this issue by establishing the supremacy of federal law, thereby strengthening the federal government's role in managing the nation's affairs.

The application of the Supremacy Clause can be observed in various legal contexts. For example, in the context of immigration, it has been argued that immigration is a constitutionally allocated function of the federal government, and therefore, federal law would preempt state laws that attempt to create their regulatory system in immigration law. This was referenced in the debate around California Senate Bill 54 (SB 54), also known as the "California Values Act," which prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from using their resources on behalf of federal immigration enforcement agencies. While there were legal challenges to SB 54 on the grounds of unconstitutionality, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the federal government, and the Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

In conclusion, the Supremacy Clause serves as a foundational principle in the U.S. Constitution, ensuring that federal law takes precedence over conflicting state laws. However, it is important to note that the Supremacy Clause does not create a cause of action, and individuals cannot sue to enforce federal law solely based on this Clause. The Clause's role is to establish the hierarchy of laws and maintain a clear division of powers between the federal and state governments.

Frequently asked questions