The “sanctuary” immigration enforcement battle involves California’s illegal defiance of the federal government. The court also refused to hear the “qualified immunity” case, which makes it very difficult to sue police for crimes against the population. In addition, the court refused to hear a number of gun rights cases.
The high court on Monday turned down the Justice Department’s request to review a federal appeals court decision that largely upheld three California laws. One of the laws passed soon after Donald Trump became president, Senate Bill 54, partitions local law enforcement from federal immigration authorities, protecting arrested immigrants and low-level offenders from deportation.
The federal government asked the Supreme Court to review SB 54. The court announced Monday that it declined that review, though Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas would have heard the case.
Trump and allies have lambasted California’s sanctuary law as an example of what they called Democratic lawlessness on immigration, but it has withstood federal attacks. In addition to rejecting the administration’s argument that California was preempted by federal law, judges have turned back a Trump administration effort to withhold law enforcement funding from “sanctuary” jurisdictions.
The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear several cases involving a legal doctrine known as “qualified immunity,” which makes it difficult to sue police for serious misconduct.
The court, however, said Monday, that it would not hear any of the cases before it related to the issue in its next term, which is slated to begin in October.
The Supreme Court on Monday passed up several challenges to federal and state gun control laws, over the dissent of two conservative justices.
Gun rights advocates had hoped the court would expand the constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” beyond the home.
Instead, the justices left in place restrictions on the right to carry weapons in public in Maryland, Massachusetts and New Jersey. They also declined to review Massachusetts’ ban on some semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity ammunition magazines, a California handgun control law and a half-century-old federal law banning interstate handgun sales.
Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a dissent in the court’s denial of a New Jersey resident’s appeal seeking the right to carry a gun in public for self-defense. Rather than take on the constitutional issue, Thomas wrote, “the Court simply looks the other way.”
Apparently, the court also looks the other way regarding freedom of religion and an individual’s right to hire and fire others who are mentally disturbed.