Or imagine, in the 1970s, that states that disagreed with newly enacted federal environmental laws punished companies that voluntarily provided pollution data to the EPA that might be used in the creation and enforcement of administrative regulations to make the statutes effective.
One way to appreciate the centrality of this supremacy principle is to imagine a converse partisan equation.
Suppose, in the 1960s, southern states tried to punish employers who voluntarily allowed federal civil rights enforcement agencies into the workplace to collect information relevant to fashioning and implementing federal workplace equality laws.
According to the complaint, the IWPA “regulates how private employers in California must respond to federal efforts to ensure compliance with federal immigration laws through investigations in places of employment.” More specifically, the California statute provides, among other things, that neither an employer nor its agent “shall . However laudable California’s intentions are here, a law such as the IWPA is very likely unconstitutional under Supreme Court doctrine.
In the seminal case in 1819 involving the Bank of the United States, Chief Justice John Marshall’s unanimous opinion, in striking down a tax Maryland targeted at a valid federal entity, held that states cannot tax or regulate in ways that directly interfere with constitutionally permissible, albeit politically controversial, federal programs, policies, and operations.
AB 103, the second target of the federal lawsuit, requires the California Attorney General or his surrogate “to engage in reviews of county, local or private . It seems that DHS, through the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency, contracts with private entities as well as with state and local governments to house noncitizen detainees on behalf of the feds, until these detainees can be processed in federal immigration tribunals.
The California statute simply directs state law enforcement to inspect these detention facilities for violations of law.
Yet when it comes to managing explicit photographs, technology generally has not been our friend.
Mobile camera rolls seem to not take the existence of nudes into account, as anyone who ever stumbled across an odd penis while scrolling through a friend’s device can tell you.
These detention facilities , especially the ones operated by local governments in the state, are (unless Congress has preempted the entire field, which is not something the complaint really demonstrates) subject to state as well as federal regulation, and if California has reason to believe state law violations are occurring distinctively at these facilities, it can direct inspection resources accordingly.
Second, even as to violations of federal (rather than state) constitutional norms, states have an important whistle-blowing and remedial role to play. § 1983, which provides a federal cause of action against operatives of state and local government who violate federal constitutional law.
When Chiu returned to Berkeley, friends would pass her their phones to look at recent photos they had taken, and she would inevitably swipe too far and see nudity.