It is no surprise that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit just enjoined the blatantly unconstitutional attempt by the "No-Longer-So-Golden State" to impose restrictions on the ability of ICE and other federal agents to enforce federal immigration law.That panel was doing exactly what federal courts are supposed to do — uphold the U.S.
Constitution.On October 14 in U.S.v.
California, the court tossed the so-called "No Vigilantes Act" (NVA) onto the ash heap.This law was part of the state’s continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which has included relentless public attacks by the governor and state officials on federal agents just trying to do their job of enforcing the law.
That includes noxious claims like Newsom likening them to the thuggish "secret police" of an "authoritarian" state.The NVA required any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California to "visibly display identification" when carrying out federal law enforcement duties.A federal agent violating this requirement could be criminally prosecuted by the state.FEDERAL JUDGE BLOCKS NEW YORK LAW BANNING ICE AGENTS FROM WEARING MASKSAs the Ninth Circuit pointed out, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…the Supreme Law of the Land." In other words, federal law not only overrides any state law to the contrary, but it requires what is called "intergovernmental immunity." Under "the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause…states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s operations or property." The panel cites to a 1996 Ninth Circuit decision, Blackburn v.
U.S., on this issue, but then points out that this basic legal principle — that states cannot interfere in federal functions — goes all the way back to one of the most seminal Supreme Court cases in our history, McCulloch v.Maryland (1819).
"It is the very essence of Supremacy," said the Cour...