""If a state law directly regulates the conduct of the United States, it is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with federal functions or operations.""
""Because the United States has shown a likelihood that the Act violates the Supremacy Clause, it has also shown that both the public interest and balance of the equities tip 'decisively in...favor' of a preliminary injunction.""
""Democrats passed the mask ban to rein in the anonymous federal agents carrying out the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement program.""
""Lawmakers this year are advancing more bills targeting the administration's immigration agents, including proposals that would bar them from employment in California law enforcement agencies and a measure that would make it easier for people to sue federal agents over civil rights violations.""
A judge ruled that state laws regulating U.S. conduct are void under the Supremacy Clause. California's lawyers argued for consideration of public safety concerns related to federal immigration enforcement, but the court declined. The ruling indicated that the U.S. demonstrated a likelihood of violating the Supremacy Clause, favoring a preliminary injunction. California Democrats enacted a mask ban targeting federal immigration agents, with further legislation proposed to limit their roles in law enforcement and facilitate civil rights lawsuits against them.
Read at Kqed
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]