Read on Twitter
On to field preemption argument by the United States.
Rule Federal interests must be so dominant, or regulation must be so pervasive that Congress left no room for states to regulate.
Key question: Relevant field of regulation - Court is inclined to Agree with CA re field.
Rule Federal interests must be so dominant, or regulation must be so pervasive that Congress left no room for states to regulate.
Key question: Relevant field of regulation - Court is inclined to Agree with CA re field.
Field definitions adopted by Court
1. ICE's housing of immigration detainees
2. Marshall's service & BOP's housing of federal prisoners.
Judge Sammartino now walks through the government's asserted interest in each field.
Ct inclined to conclude NO field preemption.
1. ICE's housing of immigration detainees
2. Marshall's service & BOP's housing of federal prisoners.
Judge Sammartino now walks through the government's asserted interest in each field.
Ct inclined to conclude NO field preemption.
So, USA's 1st argument fails. Fed interest in housing prisoners & detainees is substantial, but not to the exclusion of the state police power of California.
(context this is a HUGE loss for the feds and GEO)
No dominant, preemptive federal interest to preempt #AB32
(context this is a HUGE loss for the feds and GEO)
No dominant, preemptive federal interest to preempt #AB32
Court concludes no pervasive regulatory scheme evidencing field occupation by Congress.
"Indeed, w/r/t the Marshall's service, Congress explicitly provided that detention facilities must comply with all applicable state and local regs, suggesting Congress didn't occupy field"
"Indeed, w/r/t the Marshall's service, Congress explicitly provided that detention facilities must comply with all applicable state and local regs, suggesting Congress didn't occupy field"
On to their last, best hope: Inter-Governmental Immunity.
Court is now analyzing exceptions in #AB32 to see whether they treat anyone BETTER than the USA or GEO.
Court is now analyzing exceptions in #AB32 to see whether they treat anyone BETTER than the USA or GEO.
Neither GEO nor the USA operates any of the types of facilities listed in the first #AB32 exception. Sole issue, then, appears to be Section 9502(c), which applies to CA alternative custody programs & BOP residential reentry centers.
IF CA res reentry centers are covered no IGI
IF CA res reentry centers are covered no IGI
9503 exempts facilities privately owned or operated - no facility in this exception right now.
Court is inclined to conlude that 9503 doesn't discriminate against feds in violation of Intergovernmental Immunity
Exception for CDCR's renewal w/ private co for Brown v. Plata
Court is inclined to conlude that 9503 doesn't discriminate against feds in violation of Intergovernmental Immunity
Exception for CDCR's renewal w/ private co for Brown v. Plata
Court inclined to conclude that because CA is subject to a court-ordered population cap, US & contractors are not similarly situated to the federal government.
So, no IGI violation.
So, no IGI violation.
"GEO alleges that it will lose billions of dollars in capital investment and revenue over the next 16 years, while the US alleges it will be forced to relocate thousands of detainees, spending tax $$"
No causal connection bt #AB32 & burdens b/c closures are not discrimminatory
No causal connection bt #AB32 & burdens b/c closures are not discrimminatory
California burdening itself means neither GEO nor USA is discriminated against.
ONE EXCEPTION - BOP residential reentry centers.
Judge Sammartino concludes #AB32 doesn't violate IGI.
ONE EXCEPTION - BOP residential reentry centers.
Judge Sammartino concludes #AB32 doesn't violate IGI.
Turning to PI requests,
Sole remaining issue is Marshall's facilities and GEO's declaratory judgment action under #AB32.
Court concludes GEO's contract options are excluded by 9505(a). So court concludes GEO unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Obstacle preemption for Marshals
Sole remaining issue is Marshall's facilities and GEO's declaratory judgment action under #AB32.
Court concludes GEO's contract options are excluded by 9505(a). So court concludes GEO unlikely to succeed on the merits.
Obstacle preemption for Marshals
Court enjoins #AB32 against Marshall's service and its privately contracted facilities in California.
That concludes the Court's tentative ruling.
"I can only tell you that I think these cases are fascinating. They're complex, and I have questions for all of you."
That concludes the Court's tentative ruling.
"I can only tell you that I think these cases are fascinating. They're complex, and I have questions for all of you."
Court thanks amicus for raising "fascinating" issues that prompt a different set of questions.
Amicus Immigrant Legal Defense and Immigrant Defense Advocates filed a brief outlining the ways in which the government's contracts may have violated a host of legal provisions.
Amicus Immigrant Legal Defense and Immigrant Defense Advocates filed a brief outlining the ways in which the government's contracts may have violated a host of legal provisions.
Court takes brief break to deal with a question about the public listening into the Court's hearing.
Court takes a break because the request for public access to this hearing has apparently broken the Court's switchboard. This was a request from @the_ILRC to allow more access. Judge Sammartino explains she's not able to expand public access to the ruling.
Court moves on to questions. Starting w/ GEO:
(note - I'm going to have to dip out of this hearing's call soon, if anyone wants to pick up on this thread, please LMK and I'll help you do an account takeover). Lots of impressions on this #AB32 thread.
(note - I'm going to have to dip out of this hearing's call soon, if anyone wants to pick up on this thread, please LMK and I'll help you do an account takeover). Lots of impressions on this #AB32 thread.
Q1 for GEO: Should the two cases be consolidated?
A1:A GEO: That makes sense.
Q2 for GEO: Amici contend Ct lacks jx over GEO's claim for declaratory relief. Shouldn't these claims be subject to Contract Disputes Act/Tucker Act?
A2: No. GEO's counsel is gonna put headphone on
A1:A GEO: That makes sense.
Q2 for GEO: Amici contend Ct lacks jx over GEO's claim for declaratory relief. Shouldn't these claims be subject to Contract Disputes Act/Tucker Act?
A2: No. GEO's counsel is gonna put headphone on
