.
.
.
Plaintiffs and their supporters, overlooked by HB City Attorney Gates and 4th Circuit Judge Goethals.
We’ve got up to three months to wait and see what the three-judge panel of California’s 4th Circuit Court of Appeals thought about yesterday’s Sanctuary State vs Charter Cities arguments, but the most iconic moment to me was the panegyric to Huntington Beach on which that town’s showboating elected City Attorney Michael E. Gates chose to use his last minute of time.
Gates in HB parade
A rightwing, FOX-News celebrity now for (so far) successfully arguing that charter cities like HB don’t have to follow the state sanctuary law, Mike rhapsodized on how big and special Surf City is – so big and special that NO state should ever be able to tell them how to run their law enforcement affairs: Huntington Beach has TWENTY-SIX SQUARE MILES! They have NINE AND A HALF MILES OF COAST! They are the FOURTH BIGGEST CITY in the OC, dammit! And they are the ONLY police force in the OC with a HELICOPTER!
I guess Mike doesn’t get inland much, but Judge John Goethals (a celebrity himself for his slapdowns of former DA Tony Rackauckas over the snitch scandal and more) was quick to point out that HB is NOT the only Orange County city with a police helicopter (not that that has anything to do with whether they should follow state law.) It was an embarrassing gaffe, and Mike Gates turned red, but it was also emblematic of the lameness of his arguments in general, on how HB and other cities are too special and unique to have to follow state law. We’ll look at those momentarily…
Revolution, Counter-Revolution, Counter-Counter-Revolution!
California’s SB 54, which its authors liked calling the “California Values Act” but the rest of us call the Sanctuary State Law, could be called a Revolution against an overreaching, inhumane federal government’s immigration policy, under you-know-whom. But the impetus for this revolution was not just the state’s love of immigrants, but concern for the efficacy of our law enforcement, which many studies have shown is severely compromised when local LE agencies have to double as immigration enforcers.
Opposition to SB 54 led many municipalities, driven pretty obviously by anti-immigrant sentiment of their populations and politicians, to invent ways to justify defying the state law, and allowing their police to co-operate with ICE. This could be called the Sanctuary Counter-Revolution, and Huntington Beach led the way, as a Charter City claiming to have authorities in that area that the state cannot interfere with. Last year Judge James Crandall (who we believe to be an outlier) ruled in favor of HB’s expansive claims of Charterpower – and this could be a slippery slope given all the Charter Cities eager to follow suit.
This month, in what we call the Counter-Counter-Revolution, the ACLU of SoCal along with the National Day Laborers’ Organizing Network, Los Alamitos Communities United, and HB’s plucky barrio Oak View Comunidad, launched their own appeal against HB and Crandall’s 2018 ruling. Yesterday both appeals against Crandall’s decision were heard: California’s, and the ACLU et al.
California’s arguments
Eisenberg
California went first, in the case Huntington Beach vs Javier Becerra (Cal’s Attorney General.) The state was represented by Deputy AG Joshua Eisenberg (right, NOT “Jonathan” as the Register has it.)
The bulk of the arguments from both Eisenberg and Gates were excruciatingly semantic and grounded in diffferent interpretations of Subsections A and B of Article 11 of the State Constitution which grants special powers to Charter Cities, and may or may not be subject to a “four-part test” which determines if and when the state can overrule Charter City policies. It became obvious that there was no handy precedent for a case like this, much as both sides tried to find them.
Another angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin conundrum was over whether SB 54 was “substantive” or “procedural.” Gates insisted it forced “substantive” changes onto cities, while Eisenberg insisted they were only “procedural.” I was relieved to hear another Judge, Judge Icola, admit that the distinction between those two categories is extremely vague and subjective – yeah, that’s how it seems! (The only thing everyone could agree is “substantive” that the state has sometimes tried to force onto cities is actual dollar amounts of public employee compensation, which had nothing to do with this case.)
Both Eisenberg and Gates took hyperbole out for a spin: If Crandall’s ruling is allowed to stand, there is nothing that Charter Cities can’t get away with in the future. No, your honors, if Crandall’s ruling is overturned, that means we are re-writing the state constitution and it means nothing to be a Charter City!
But Eisenberg made some really good points – what Huntington Beach law enforcement does affects a lot more than just HB residents who may or may not be undocumented – just look at how many folks of all races pass through that beloved beach town. The state certainly has a legitimate interest in protecting them.
Eisenberg also referenced a recent study of California’s immigrant community, where immigrants were asked how the TRUST they feel with law enforcement would be affected if Sanctuary became PATCHWORK – if it was hard to say WHICH agencies were co-operating with ICE and which were not? The study definitively confirmed that trust would be dashed, and SB 54’s benefits would virtually vanish.
In response to Gates’ portrait of Sanctuary as some enforced radical anarchy, Eisenberg pointed out the list of LITERALLY HUNDREDS of felonies and “wobblers” that allow a police force to turn a convict over to ICE. And as a coup-de-grâce Eisenberg reminded the honorable judges that SB 54 was upheld by the 9th Circuit in April. And then it was time for the actual affected parties to make THEIR case.
ACLU, Oak View, et al. Join the State’s Appeal
Apparently – who knew? – this was all somewhat unorthodox, for interested parties to launch their own appeal, while a larger party (the state) is already conducting basically the same appeal. And naturally Gates began by questioning the STANDING of these four organizations. Are they really aggrieved, are they really suffering “substantial pecuniary damage?” Even Judge Icola was puzzled: These plaintiffs are ALL US CITIZENS, so how can they be affected by this law?
Well, duh, your Honor – just because these plaintiffs are citizens doesn’t mean that they don’t have family members and many friends and neighbors who, in today’s terror of deportation, have been avoiding hospitals and health care, missing work and school, and been reluctant to report crime and domestic violence in their neighborhoods. (And in a circular way, the fact that no non-citizens felt comfortable signing on to the suit kinda illustrates the problem.)
Still, the panel wanted to know – why do YOU ALL need to launch your own appeal, when the state is pretty much making most of your arguments for you already? Good question, responded our way-cool counsel Samir Deger-Sen of Latham & Watkins. With all respect to the Attorney General, we cannot just rest securely assuming the state will continue to represent our interests as long as might be necessary. And we are likely to think of other effective arguments that the state may not. (I’m paraphrasing.)
Judge Goethals interjected helpfully, “I believe what you’re saying is, you want to be able to control your own destiny.”
Yes. We liked the sound of that.
So Long Story Short
This sort of Court of Appeals doesn’t weigh in right away. They are going to present their opinions in writing some time in the next 90 days – i.e. by late January but hopefully sooner. (What law applies in places like HB until then? I’m not sure, but I don’t think there’s been a stay.)
Meanwhile, in the hour or so before the hearing, several of Mike Gates’ supporters showed up outside the courthouse, with arguments disarming in their simplicity and directness:
Utilizing bullhorns, they opined that we were “BOZOS” and encouraged us to “GO HOME” – presumably to some sort of Bozo Refuge.
Taken under advisement.
SB-54
Posted by Victor Valladares on Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Gates is Gross
Recognize Kelly “moms for Gracey/ I committed voter fraud and bragged about it” Gates. In the photo with her porcine, cyborg husband.
But who is that screaming old man in the video? Crikey. To get that old and still be that stupid and embarrassing. He thinks he’s got some real good burns! I bet he’s one of those morons that still thinks saying, “Obummer” is the height of hilarity. He’s funny all right. But not in the way he thinks…
Gates is SO desperate for any kind of attention or accolades. But he can’t be bothered to shut down the illegal sober living houses ruining residential neighborhoods for life time HB residents. He has an excuse for EVERYTHING. Some vocal local people like him because they agree with his nasty opinions. But when it comes down to it he has DONE NOTHING. He just finds a reason to pass the buck. Not impressed. At all.
Plus, he acts like such a dirty fool posting photos of them drinking and sleazy comments to local woman (like GCT) How many times now has he had to delete a post because it was totally inaccurate information or just such a bad look?
He’s EXTRA gross.
#MOMSFORGRACEY Gates is an incompetent fascist tool who’s branding efforts took a dive after his mentor, Rackaukas, got beat. Pretty Boy Gates thought he was Tony’s successor. Todd Spitzer thought differently.
If so, it must have been extra galling for Mike to have to argue in front of Tony’s nemesis Goethals.
Gates is Gross
Never forget how stoked Gates was to find a slippery way to sell The Roger’s Park property for development. Talk about letter of the law versus spirit. There is NO QUESTION that property was gifted to the citizens for specific public use. But that evil schemer (who was obviously going over the legalities with a greedy, greasy magnifying glass salivating on how to violate the intended use and cash it in as part of their ongoing crony development) found a lapsed renewal and pounced. Then he tried to reel back his glee and as always MAKE EXCUSES. He “was just working for the city council and showing them their options. He didn’t just brag on social media about trying to steal a park from the community blah blah barf barf “. Gates did not care at all what the property was legally meant to be or what the actual residents wanted.
Before Gates spends one second on KFI bragging about his attention seeking endeavors he should solve the REAL problems in the city he serves. Dozens of people are reaching out publicly all the time about the illegal sober living businesses on BOTH sides of their family homes. But I guess that kind of the thing does not feed Gates’ insatiable need for the spot light. No matter how negatively it impacts the good tax payers of the city every single day. They can wait as Gates makes excuse after excuse. But here’s a selfie from Black Trumpet! Enough of the dead eyed pix.
Nobody cares about your meals at Capone’s. They want results. Get to work. People are actually counting on you! Shut down the illegal sober living homes in the residential neighborhoods. No more excuses. You said you were going to do it. If you can’t – get out of the way and let someone else solve the problem. Everyone knows these human chop shops are what lead to all the drugged out crazies on every corner. Even those shrill voiced ninnies on KFI would agree with that fact. Maybe someone should clue them in on all that Gates is NOT DOING to eradicate the drug addled homeless that are easily the cities #1 problem.
Seriously. On a daily basis what impacts any Huntington Beach resident more? Sanctuary city/charter city attention grab? Or person openly shooting dope and sh*tting in the street? If you say sanctuary city/charter city you are not just a blind, dense follower – you are a liar too.
The Court of Appeals today upheld the State of California’s Values Act (“Sanctuary” Law) and rejected HB’s claim that Charter Cities were constitutionally exempt from its provisions. It’s now up to the HB City Council (presumably with the City Attorney’s advice) to decide whether to request review by the California Supreme Court.
https://www.ocregister.com/2020/01/10/appeals-court-overturns-ruling-allowing-huntington-beach-to-ignore-states-sanctuary-law-sb-54/
“Court of Appeals Judges Raymond Ikola, Thomas Goethals and Richard Fybel overturned the lower court’s decision. [The 2018 Crandall decision backing HB’s charter claims,]
“’We hold (SB 54) constitutional as applied to charter cities because it addresses matters of statewide concern — including public safety and health, effective policing, and protection of constitutional rights,’ the judges wrote, adding that the law ‘is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local government.’”
By this reasoning, by the way, CATER would have won its case against Anaheim, if the judges had agreed that there was a state interest in not letting charter cities take out humongous bonds without having the matter go to a vote, as the State Constitution requires.
https://kfiam640.iheart.com/content/2020-01-10-appellate-justices-rule-against-huntington-beach-in-sanctuary-state-law/
The justices said the state’s law was constitutional “as applied to charter cities because it addresses matters of statewide concern — including public safety and health, effective policing and protection of constitutional rights,” Associate Justice Richard F. Fybel wrote the opinion with justices Raymond J. Ikola and Thomas Goethals concurring.
Fybel ruled that the state law “is reasonably related to resolution of those statewide concerns, and is narrowly tailored to avoid unnecessary interference in local government.”
The justices also found that the American Civil Liberties Union, Los Alamitos Community United and four residents lacked legal standing to intervene in the case.
Huntington Beach attorney Michael Gates told City News Service that he will recommend the City Council appeal to the state Supreme Court.
The justices opinion “not only makes the state’s case, they go beyond it and add additional analysis,” Gates said.
“I’m very disappointed in the ruling and will talk to the city council about the next steps, but I don’t believe, based on all of my extensive research of all of the case law, that this is a reasonable, final word on this.”
The issue was destined to be settled by the state Supreme Court in any event, Gates acknowledged.
The justices’ opinion is “saying that express constitutional authority is subordinate to (the justices’) analysis,” Gates said. “You don’t get to qualify or alter what the constitution says, or to rewrite the constitution.”
the opinion https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/G057013.PDF
Prodigious districting litigator Kevin Shenkman opines on Facebook:
“Having argued Jauregui v City of Palmdale, which is discussed significantly in the court’s decision, I am very familiar with the issues. The court of appeal’s decision is exceptionally thorough and well reasoned. I have no doubt that the California Supreme Court will affirm… probably by simply denying Gates’ petition for review.”
Thanks for calling attention to this, Joel!
Nice work on the follow-up, Vern. I sure hope that some HB attorney is getting ready to take Gates on when he’s next up. (Only one, please — no vote-splitting!)
Breaking today: The California Supreme Court tells HB and Mike Gates to take a hike https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/California-s-top-court-All-cities-do-not-have-15172822.php?
“In the 3-0 ruling, Justice Richard Fybel said the Legislature, in enacting SB-54, had made findings that undocumented immigrants were reluctant to report crimes to police, and sometimes to attend school or seek health care, if they believed local officers were working with immigration agents.Fybel said the law also protects immigrants’ constitutional rights, “a matter of paramount statewide concern.
“Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael E. Gates said the ruling was at odds with provisions in the state Constitution that allow charter cities to regulate their police departments.But the state’s high court #unanimously #denied review of the city’s appeal Wednesday, making the appeals court decision final and binding on trial courts statewide.The case is Huntington Beach vs. Becerra, S260766.”
On a different note, I hear that Michael Gates actually wrote a decent humane COVID eviction moratorium for Huntington Beach, and that town’s council Republicans voted it down. Arghhh…