An Orange County judge on Thursday ruled that SB54, California's so-called "sanctuary state" law, is unconstitutional.
The Superior Court judge said the law violates the rights of charter cities.
The ruling comes in response to a challenge from Huntington Beach officials. The city opposed the controversial law, arguing it infringes on local governments' authority. The judge agreed, saying cities must be allowed to police themselves.
Huntington Beach City Attorney Michael Gates called the ruling a victory for the state's 121 charter cities.
"I'm very pleased with the court's ruling," Gates said. "(This) is a significant victory for the rule of law, the CA Constitution, the City's Charter authority, and other Charter Cities. We will continue to hold Sacramento accountable for unconstitutional State law overreaches. The City of Huntington Beach will not allow Sacramento to violate its Constitutionally protected rights."
Interesting; who knew there were charter cities in the first place - let alone so many of them? Apparently, there are General Law cities (which are impeded hamstrung governed by the state, and then there are Charter cities, which afford considerably more local control). In regard to SB54, charter cities are perfectly free to ignore the "sanctuary state" law that was recently passed in Sacramento. That seems like a big point in favor of charter cities.
It would be interesting to see how far that extends; if Moonbeam wants to run "high-speed rail" through a charter city whose voters oppose it, for example - can they prevent it from happening?
