Orange County judge rules California's 'sanctuary state' law unconstitutional

ABC7

The Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities. The ruling comes in response to a challenge from Huntington Beach officials. The city opposed the controversial law, arguing it infringes on local governments' authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.

Finally some common sense coming out of the California judicial system.
Any reasonable person should have seen this coming. Though maybe not on the grounds this judge ruled on.

Yes local governments should largely be able to police themselves, but immigration is a clearly defined federal issue and is also clearly under the purview of the Executive Branch.

The notion that State can openly harbor these criminals who are blatantly disregarding our laws and immigration process is ridiculous. I'm sure this won't be the last time this issue is argued in the courts. But it's nice to see common sense being used.

States attempting to force local police to obstruct justice is absurd.

The mere act of Sanctuary Cities is a violation of harboring fugitives from the law

originally posted by: Gothmog
The mere act of Sanctuary Cities is a violation of harboring fugitives from the law

That is what I always thought.

a reply to: watchitburn

Don't worry nothing will change. Cali is crazy.

Whoops........looks like that blue wave hit a reef.......

originally posted by: Gothmog
The mere act of Sanctuary Cities is a violation of harboring fugitives from the law

I find it interesting that they don't look at the bigger picture. If it is ok to break that law why not harbour others that have broken the law? They have set a precedence that says, if we don't agree with the law, we won't enforce it and will protect those that have broken it.

I personally don't think it does any good to put addicts in prison, can they be safe in a santuary city? Why should they be any different? If I can find some people that agree with me do we just ignore the law? And on and on.....

What judge? I couldn't find a name in the source.

originally posted by: intrepid
What judge? I couldn't find a name in the source.

Good catch! I didn't notice that they didn't name the judge in the original source.

Orange County Superior Court Judge James Crandall

Source

a reply to: intrepid

Judge James Crandall, other news sources carry the name.


Mg

Odd ruling that I dont understand, even charter cities must follow state law.

a reply to: watchitburn

I dont think they expected to win this one however its a small victory, affecting only about 100 cities within California. This was a state court ruling and there are currently pending federal legal challenges against the law.

originally posted by: Pyle
Odd ruling that I dont understand, even charter cities must follow state law.

In California charter cities have a greater degree of "separation" when it comes to the state government. In this case the way California charter cities work, specifically dealing solely with law enforcement in those "charter cities" the state cant tell the city how it can and cannot operate with other law enforcement agencies, including federal.

SB54 is the sanctuary city law California passed and it moves into an area reserved to the cities under California law (law on charter cities). If I am not mistaken in addition to preventing the enforcement of federal immigration law by restricting CA law enforcement cooperation with federal agencies it also attached a civil/criminal penalty for agencies / officers who violate the California law.


An example of how weird relationships between cities and states work look at St. Louis mo. While it is a part of Missouri the city is actually an independent city. It is only 1 of 41 independent cities with the US (Bulk being in Virginia, with Carson City NV and Baltimore Maryland. Speaking for Missouri The city of St. Louis does not fall within any county (although they have a Sheriff who only oversees the court / jail system). There are Missouri statutes that are only applicable to St. Louis given their unique status.

California's charter city laws are a parallel, so to speak, of that system.


General law city verse Charter City - Staten of California.

California state law dictates that cities may be organized under either the general laws of the State or under a charter adopted by the local voters. This authority is set forth in the California Government Code commencing with Section 34100.

Cities that are organized under the general laws of the State (Section 34102) have less autonomy than those that adopt their own charter (Section 34101). General law cities follow the laws set forth in the Government Code commencing with Section 34000.

Cities that adopt their own charter, may adopt their own procedures for matters that are considered “municipal affairs.” The California Constitution grants charter cities the power to make and enforce all ordinances and resolutions with respect to municipal affairs (California Constitution Article XI, Section 5(a)). This is commonly referred to as the “home rule” provision. Typical examples of municipal affairs include the manner of conducting local elections and the city’s dealings with its municipal officers and employees.

The procedures a city must follow for adopting its own charter commence at Section 34450. The charter is a written document that operates as the city’s “constitution.” Just as the California Constitution controls the actions of the State, a city’s charter operates as the constitution of the city. The charter may be amended or repealed by subsequent votes of the residents. An amendment may be proposed either by the city council or by initiative submitted to the council by the voters.

While adopting a charter gives a city control over its municipal affairs, charter cities are subject to the same state laws as general law cities on matters considered to be of “statewide concern.” What constitutes a municipal affair as opposed to a matter of statewide concern is a fluid concept. Over time, what was once viewed as a municipal affair can subsequently become a matter of statewide concern. If the State legislature or the voters of the State declare a matter to be one of statewide concern, any local charter provision or ordinance governing that area becomes preempted by the subsequent State legislation.

Of the approximately 481 incorporated cities and towns in the State of California, only 86 are charter cities. The State’s largest cities, namely San Diego, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Jose, and San Francisco are charter cities.

The lawsuit challenge used the state law (charter city) to undermine the state law on sanctuary cities. No charter city has an ordinance that violates state law on immigration. Ironically the California legislature undermined their own actions by passing the sanctuary city law by violating its city charter law.

Kind of funny I think....

How is this topic even debatable?

Pro sanctuary cities, ha ha ha ha ha

Dont be so liberal with your laws

originally posted by: Bloodworth
How is this topic even debatable?

Pro sanctuary cities, ha ha ha ha ha

Dont be so liberal with your laws

At the Federal level the 10th amendment.
At the state level California's law on Charter cities (which is their equivalent of the 10th amendment at the state level).

On a personal level I agree with you and oppose sanctuary cities / states. My answer is purely pointing out the legal realm the debate is occurring in.

It's good that the city is looking out for its citizens.
The state was telling them to harbor criminals and allow non-US citizens to take jobs.
At least someone in Cali has some common sense.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
It's good that the city is looking out for its citizens.
The state was telling them to harbor criminals and allow non-US citizens to take jobs.
At least someone in Cali has some common sense.

They don't want to. They will fight it tooth an nail.
Looking out for citizens. Not in liberal California