Difference between revisions of "Murphy v. NCAA"
(a start) |
(expanded) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
In ''Murphy v. NCAA'' (2018), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] expanded the anti-commandeering principle in order to allow states to authorize [[gambling]] on sports. | In ''Murphy v. NCAA'' (2018), the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] expanded the anti-commandeering principle in order to allow states to authorize [[gambling]] on sports. | ||
| − | Since then, at least one court (the [[Ninth Circuit]]) has used this decision to allow a state ([[California]]) to flout [[federal]] [[immigration]] laws. | + | Since then, at least one court (the [[Ninth Circuit]]) has used this decision to allow a state ([[California]]) to flout [[federal]] [[immigration]] laws: |
| + | ((cquote|SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts. However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts. The United States stresses that, in crafting the INA, Congress expected cooperation between states and federal immigration authorities. That is likely the case. But when questions of federalism are involved, we must distinguish between expectations and requirements. In this context, the federal government was free to expect as much as it wanted, but it could not require California's cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment.}} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ''United States v. California'', No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019). | ||
Revision as of 13:47, April 22, 2019
In Murphy v. NCAA (2018), the U.S. Supreme Court expanded the anti-commandeering principle in order to allow states to authorize gambling on sports.
Since then, at least one court (the Ninth Circuit) has used this decision to allow a state (California) to flout federal immigration laws: ((cquote|SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts. However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts. The United States stresses that, in crafting the INA, Congress expected cooperation between states and federal immigration authorities. That is likely the case. But when questions of federalism are involved, we must distinguish between expectations and requirements. In this context, the federal government was free to expect as much as it wanted, but it could not require California's cooperation without running afoul of the Tenth Amendment.}}
United States v. California, No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. Apr. 18, 2019).
