HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-08 - AGENDA REPORTS - SB 54 FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN THE US V (2)16
Agenda Item: 16
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
AGENDA REPORT
NEW BUSINESS
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
DATE: May 8, 2018
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OPPOSING SENATE BILL
54 AND AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF AN AMICUS CURIAE
BRIEF IN THE UNITED STATES V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LAWSUIT
DEPARTMENT: City Manager's Office
PRESENTER: Michael Murphy
RECOMMENDED ACTION
City Council discuss and provide direction regarding the attached resolution, which states the
City Council4 and directs the City Attorney to file an amicus curiae
brief, if and when appropriate.
BACKGROUND
At the regular meeting of April 10, 2018, the City Council directed that an item be placed on a
future City Council agenda to discuss consideration of a resolution opposing Senate Bill 54,
Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017, known as the California Values Act. The Council further outlined
that the resolution include direction to the City Attorney to file an amicus curiae brief in support
of the federal governmen
when appropriate.
On October 5, 2017, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 54, which may be cited as the
California Values Act. The new law became effective on January 1, 2018. Senate Bill (SB) 54
made changes to state law related to the involvement of state and local law enforcement agencies
relative to federal immigration enforcement.
Among other provisions, Senate Bill 54 repealed state law requiring law enforcement agencies to
notify federal immigration authorities of a drug related arrest involving a non-United States
citizen. The new law also prohibits law enforcement agencies from using department funds or
personnel to share with federal immigration authorities the personal information and release date
of an individual arrested, detained, or convicted of a misdemeanor that was previously
punishable as a felony, prior to the passage of Proposition 47 in 2014. Furthermore, the new law
Page 1
Packet Pg. 158
16
authorizes law enforcement officials to share the release date of an individual or transfer an
individual to federal immigration authorities if the individual has been convicted of a serious or
violent felony, has been convicted within the past five years of a misdemeanor for a crime that is
punishable as either a misdemeanor or a felony, or has been convicted within the past 15 years of
a specific non-violent felony. Previously, there were no limitations on when a crime was
committed that would restrict release date information.
On March 6, 2018, the United States Department of Justice filed a legal action in federal court
against the State of California, citing provisions within three new state laws as being in violation
of the United States Constitution and acts of Congress granting authority to the federal
government to regulate matters related to immigration. The lawsuit highlights the United States
authority over all matters exclusively reserved to the United States, in this case immigration.
In addition to Senate Bill 54, the federal action challenges provisions contained within two other
new state laws: Assembly Bill 450, Chapter 492, Statutes of 2017, and Assembly Bill 103,
Chapter 17, Statutes of 2017.
In recent weeks, several counties and cities in California have considered challenging or
supporting Senate Bill 54. These efforts have predominantly taken the form of initiating direct
litigation or supporting specific positions within currently pending litigation; most notably is the
litigation filed by the United States against the State of California outlined above.
For example, the City of Los Alamitos, a charter city that operates its own police department,
adopted an ordinance to exempt the City from provisions contained within the California Values
Act and directed its police department to comply with federal law. The City of Los Alamitos
has been sued by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).
The City of Huntington Beach, a charter city and a direct provider of law enforcement services,
has filed a lawsuit in state court challenging Senate Bill 54, as interfering with the formal and
informal contractual relationship between the City and the federal government regarding
immigration issues. The California Constitution provides for certain home rule and control of
local law enforcement by charter cities.
In contrast, the City of Santa Clarita (City) is a general law city, bound by the laws adopted by
the California Legislature. Santa Clarita is one of 42 cities that contracts for law enforcement
does not include the ability to dictate policy direction on provision of services by the Los
Ange
County Board of Supervisors and Sheriff. As such, the City of Santa Clarita would not be able to
put forward the same legal arguments concerning charter city preemption that Huntington Beach,
for example, is asserting.
The opportunity for the City of Santa Clarita to participate in the legal process is limited. As the
City contracts for law enforcement services, as opposed to directly operating its own police
department, the City does not have the same legal standing as charter law cities, general law
cities with their own police departments, or the federal government. However, the City would
Page 2
Packet Pg. 159
16
still have the option of seeking to file an amicus curiae brief in an existing litigation specific to
challenging SB 54, related to impacts upon the City of Santa Clarita.
In the United States v. State of California litigation, the City of Santa Clarita could seek to file an
amicus curiae brief in support of either the plainti
California) position. The United States is seeking a preliminary injunction that would prohibit
enforcement of the new laws while the case is pending. The hearing on the preliminary
injunction is currently set for June 20. Anyone who wished to file an amicus brief in support of
2018. Anyone who wishes to file an amicus brief in support of the State of California regarding
the issue of a preliminary injunction must do so by May 18, 2018.
Assuming that the case will continue after the preliminary injunction hearing (whether the
injunction gets issued or not) there will be another round of briefs submitted for the trial, and it is
likely that the judge will set a schedule for submitting amicus briefs in support of either party for
the trial on the permanent injunction. Depending upon the outcome at trial, there may be
additional, future opportunities to file amicus briefs in the context of any future appeal in this
case.
Under federal court rules, the judge makes the determination as to whether or not to accept an
amicus brief from a particular entity. Based upon rulings in the case thus far, the judge will be
seeking briefings that assist the court in understanding issues related to the case beyond the
arguments provided by the lawyers of the parties in the case or previously filed amicus briefs.
As of the writing of this report, a number of briefs have been filed or authorized for filing in
support of the United States; including from 16 states, 1 California county and 9 cities.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Other direction as determined by the City Council
FISCAL IMPACT
No additional resources required beyond those already contained within the City's adopted FY
2017/18 budget.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution Regarding the California Values Act
Page 3
Packet Pg. 160
16.a
RESOLUTION NO. 18-_____
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA,
CALIFORNIA, REGARDING THE CALIFORNIA VALUES ACT
WHEREAS, the California Legislature passed and the Governor signed into law, Senate
Bill 54, Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017, which may be cited as the California Values Act; and
WHEREAS, on March 6, 2018, the United States Department of Justice filed a legal
action against the State of California, citing provisions within SB 54 and two other new state
laws as being in violation of the United States Constitution and acts of Congress granting
authority to the federal government to regulate matters related to immigration and the United
States Constitutclause; and
WHEREAS, several local jurisdictions in California are challenging the authority of the
State of California to mandate local government action over subject areas that historically have
been within the purview of local jurisdictions related to law enforcement and interactions with
the federal government; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita is a California municipal corporation operating
under the general laws of the State of California; and
WHEREAS, the City of Santa Clarita contracts for law enforcement services with the
WHEREAS, oversight, direction, and policy setting on the provision of law enforcement
services are provided by the elected Sheriff and Members of the Board of Supervisors of the
County of Los Angeles; and
ement services does not
provide the City of Santa Clarita with the ability to dictate policy direction on provision of
WHEREAS, the Santa Clarita City Council shares concerns with other municipal leaders
that generally oppose provisions contained within legislation or administrative policies enacted
by the State of California that seeks to alter the direct ability of local governments and the
federal government to work cooperatively on matters of mutual interest; and
WHEREAS, the Santa Clarita City Council shares concerns with other local government
leaders that provision of local law enforcement services should be a matter of local control and
determination.
Attachment: Resolution Regarding the California Values Act \[Revision 2\] (Senate Bill 54: California Values Act)
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Santa Clarita does hereby resolve as
follows:
Page 1 of 3
Packet Pg. 161
16.a
SECTION 1: The Santa Clarita City Council is opposed to provisions that conflict with
federal law in Senate Bill 54, Chapter 495, Statutes of 2017, and urges the California Legislature
to repeal those provisions.
SECTION 2: The Santa Clarita City Council directs the City Attorney to file an amicus
curiae brief in support of the United States in the case of the United States of America v. The
State of California, Edmund G. Brown Jr. and Xavier Becerra (18-264), related to Senate Bill 54,
if and when appropriate.
SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this _____th day of ________________ 2018.
____________________________________
MAYOR
ATTEST:
_________________________________
CITY CLERK
DATE: _________________________
Attachment: Resolution Regarding the California Values Act \[Revision 2\] (Senate Bill 54: California Values Act)
Page 2 of 3
Packet Pg. 162
16.a
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA )
I, Mary Cusick, City Clerk of the City of Santa Clarita, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution No. 18-__ was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa
th
Clarita at a regular meeting thereof, held on the ___ day of __________ 2018, by the following
vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
______________________________
CITY CLERK
Attachment: Resolution Regarding the California Values Act \[Revision 2\] (Senate Bill 54: California Values Act)
Page 3 of 3
Packet Pg. 163