Supreme Court decision could benefit California’s defense of sanctuary laws, Dean Johnson tells L.A. Times

A Supreme Court decision backing states’ rights to offer sports betting could benefit California’s defense of its immigration sanctuary laws, Dean Kevin R. Johnson told the Los Angeles Times.

The high court’s May 14 decision in Murphy v. NCAA struck down a federal law on sports wagering. The federal government may not “commandeer” states and force them to uphold federal directives, the court found.

The opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito also said states may adopt “offending proposals” that contradict federal law. In 2017, California enacted three “sanctuary” laws amid an aggressive effort by the Trump administration to identify undocumented immigrants. In March, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California regarding the three laws.

The federal-state conflict also is at the center of a suit regarding sanctuary cities and federal funds. Last year, California sued Sessions for trying to deny some funding to sanctuary cities, maintaining the Justice Department had no authority to add conditions to spending laws.

The sports-betting decision lends credence to California’s claims, Johnson told the Times. “An argument can be made that the Trump administration, through executive order and otherwise, is attempting to commandeer state institutions in the name of immigration enforcement.”

Kevin R. Johnson is Dean and Mabie-Apallas Professor of Public Interest Law and Chicana/o studies at UC Davis School of Law. He is an internationally recognized scholar in the fields of immigration law and policy, refugee law, and civil rights.