Yesterday, the Trump administration and the Department of Justice lost a court battle in Federal District Court in Los Angeles related to the Flores settlement and the ‘confinement’ of small children. In a shocking twist, a second ruling rejected the right of the federal government’s attempt to help criminal families stay together, and stop sanctuary tactics. The children will now suffer because of the hatred of leftists for the rule of law and President Trump.
In a case before Judge Dolly M. Gee, who was appointed by Barack Obama, the Justice Department was attempting to roll back the requirements of the Flores settlement in order to prevent the separation of families.
Due to the settlement, children can only be kept in detention for around 20 days. After those twenty days, they have to be released into the care of ‘licensed care programs,’ which in some cases can mean an adoption or foster system that will take care of the children until a decision is reached concerning their case.
Indeed, she countered nearly every argument the DOJ made, showing her political bias, not her supposed impartiality for the law.
She suggested that the administration’s request to modify the agreement from 1997 was a “cynical attempt” to force the courts to deal with immigration policy after years of poorly-considered executive actions (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, for example) and failure of Congress to act on the contentious topic created the current legal stalemate.
With her ruling, the leftist judge in Los Angeles undermined the only really viable hope for keeping children and their parents together during detention.
At this point, the Trump administration’s options are either to release illegal immigrant families and hope they show up for their court dates, or find a way to deport them in under twenty days.
Of course, due to the work of ‘legal aid’ societies who help them abuse the immigration system and claim ‘asylum’ due to things like domestic disputes, that is unlikely.
Elsewhere in California, U.S. District Judge John Mendez, who was appointed to the court by George W. Bush, undermined the majority of the Donald J. Trump administration’s lawsuit, which sought to crack down on California and its ‘sanctuary state’ laws.
Mendez tossed out a decent portion of the lawsuit that sought to invalidate California Senate Bill 54, which limits cooperation between law enforcement agencies in the state with federal immigration enforcement agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Judge Mendez also dismissed, entirely, an effort by the federal government to block Assembly Bill 103 in the state, which would allow the California attorney general (currently leftist Xavier Becerra) to inspect federal immigration detention facilities.
That particular bill is absurd, and the state has little right to ‘review and report’ on federal facilities.
Mendez also dismissed part of the lawsuit against Assembly Bill 405, which attempted to limit the cooperation of private employers with the federal government and its immigration enforcement agencies.
In doing so, he rejected the belief that only the federal government has a say in immigration laws and how they’re enforced, a strange decision given that the Barack Obama administration claimed precisely that when they took action against the state of Arizona when it attempted to enforce immigration law.
It seems like these decisions are ripe for appeal, and will likely be overturned if such an appeal is filed.
However, both judges, located in the most left-leaning state in the country, decided to back the leftist idea that the state can simply not follow laws it doesn’t like.
It’s interesting that the political left is a fan of the idea of state’s rights in carefully-chosen cases. Gun laws should be state’s rights (so that California can be absurdly restrictive), and immigration laws should be a state’s rights issue, but abortion has to be federally enforced.
The federal government’s battle with the state of California is likely not over, thankfully. Hopefully, higher courts will overrule the insanity of the lower courts. However, the fight is likely to be long and arduous.