Search the Lounge


« Michael Cohen and Stormy Daniels [UPDATED with a working link] | Main | Belonging »

March 12, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I would like to clarify my position on HB 103. Under this provision, the California AG is required to inspect state and private facilities where immigrants are detained by federal authorities. In a sense, this discriminates against federal law, because it imposes a burden (inspections) on the detention of people awaiting federal immigration hearings. And, HB does not withdraw state assistance, so, unlike SB 54, it is not saved by Printz's anticommandeering rule. My point in the post was that the state inspection of facilities would probably not pose an obstacle to federal law and thus would not qualify for conflict preemption. This is because I would assume that the inspection would only burden federal immigration enforcement if the inspection turned up something wrong, like unlawful detention. I am making some assumptions here on HB 103 though, so I welcome feedback in the comments.

Deep State Special Legal Counsel

Cap N Trade, Common Core and on and on. Hypocrites.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Bloggers Emereti


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad