Shawn Nelson Calls For County to Join Litigation Against SB 54 Sanctuary State Law

shawn nelson feat AB

From Supervisor Shawn Nelson:

Orange County Supervisor Shawn Nelson Seeks to join USDOJ Litigation or initiate Separate Litigation against the State of California’s Sanctuary State Legislation

SANTA ANA, CA— In response to Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel’s request to adopt a resolution against California Statute SB 54, Supervisor Shawn Nelson is asking County Counsel to either join existing litigation filed by the United States Department of Justice or initiate a separate legal action. This item will be heard by the Orange County Board of Supervisors at their regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, March 27th at 9:30 AM.

Supervisor Nelson is calling to enjoin enforcement of SB 54, which restricts local law enforcement officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities about the release date of removable criminal aliens in their custody; and AB 103 which imposes a state-run inspection and review scheme of the federal detention of aliens held in facilities pursuant to federal contracts. This includes review of immigration processes and the circumstances in which aliens were apprehended, and also requires access to privileged federal records that are under ICE’s control. With this law, the State of California is trying to regulate federal immigration detention, which it cannot do under the United States Constitution.

“Both of these laws are pre-empted by Federal law. The state has no authority to target facilities holding federal detainees pursuant to a federal contract. Also, the state cannot direct county employees to refuse to engage in basic cooperation with federal immigration authorities that is contemplated by federal law” said Supervisor Nelson, who represents Fullerton, Anaheim, Buena Park, La Habra, Placentia and Brea on the Orange County Board of Supervisors.

“This legislation prevents law enforcement from removing criminals from our community and is a threat to public safety” said Supervisor Nelson.

Link to United States Department of Justice Lawsuit:


  1. I Am going to be in minority. Nelson is a pompous, I am looking for votes, fool. This is a complete waste of taxpayer dollars. He is on the wrong side of this issue.

  2. He may be pompous, but this time he’s on the right side of the issue.

  3. SP, I hope you are not a weed smoker, cuz’ Federal law trumps State law.

  4. Remember when everyone complained about Arizona laws that were stricter than Federal Law in regards about Immigration. Seems like every Liberal/Progressive person was saying that Federal Law trumped State law, and the courts agreed with them.

    It is very clear that Federal laws are primary in regards to immigration. So Supervisor Nelson is on the Right Side of the issue.

    • That’s one way to look at it. And I never rule out anyone having double standards regarding something they strongly feel is morally right or wrong.

      But wait…

      It’s not apples to apples. Arizona was stopped from enforcing their own immigration policy because it’s not a state’s business to do that. But California shouldn’t have to help the feds with their immigration policy because it’s not a state’s business to do that.

      There, no double standard after all!

      • vern: Two words: KATE STEINLE

      • Nobody guided by a true moral framework has double standards regarding said morals, as you suggest. My morals and values have been the same since childhood and Catholic school.

        There’s a difference between city and state LE agencies doing the job of DHS ICE as opposed to informing ICE of a discovered illegal criminal element. All states and cities should willingly to a limited extent provide intel and assistance to ICE when they find a criminal element among illegal immigrants, and ICE should do the same.

      • Vern, good to have you on record as believing state government should endeavor to prevent the deportation of illegal immigrants.

      • Matthew, a little more reading comprehension, a little less “gotcha” reflex.

        Gengler, wasn’t I clear when I admitted that sometimes when we feel something strong MORALLY, it could cause us to have a flexible interpretation of what the LAW means, that could look like a “double standard?” And then I showed that this wasn’t a double standard anyway.

        But here’s an example: Eight years ago when Arizona’s stricter immigration policies were struck down as an affront to Federal supremacy, did you applaud that as appropriate, as you’d like to do now with California? I kinda doubt it, but only you know if you did.

        Yeah, “two words,” Anaheim. Kate’s family is getting sick of you people using her tragic death to score political points against populations you dislike. Policies that affect millions of people shouldn’t be based on one tragic accident.

        • Funny to hear TWO FACED Jose Moreno, talk, Blog, Whine about the poor, but with his free hand, he takes his kids, BRAGS and promotes a place that sells $6.00 Latte’s, $8.75 ICE CREAM CONES/CHURRO’s.

          This guy is a CLASS A hypocrite. A privileged public employee, in a $750,000. house.


        • You were clear. What you think are morals, are not morals. Morals like The Ten Commandments don’t change out of convenience as you suggest, and laws don’t change either. Presuming a healthy mind, one doesn’t distort the other; if anything they work together.

        • You really didn’t say that??? You’re speaking for Kate’s family, now. Talk about exaggerating your importance to make an unreasonable point. Liberal advocates, maybe even you, distort and attack every LE shooting with the expectation lethal force should never be used, even if it costs the lives of LE and good citizens. That one tragic event is an example because of the repeated criminal history of that illegal immigrant.

          • Um… I heard Kate’s family speak after the not guilty verdict. Duh.

          • Since you’re still arguing with me, Gengler, I missed the part where you answered this:

            Since you now condemn California for not kowtowing to Federal immigration policy, did you do the same 7-8 years ago when Arizona was slapped down for the same thing (but in the opposite direction)?

            Just wanna see if you have double standards. When it comes to what we think is legally correct regarding something we feel strongly about “morally”.

            • Vern, when do you report to jail?
              Or have you already completed that part of your sentence?

              Can you drive?

            • “Since you now condemn California for not kowtowing to Federal immigration policy…”

              “Kowtowing”? It’s called federal law supersedes state law. It’s called the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government exclusive jurisdiction over immigration. California should not be trying to prevent federal authorities from discharging their lawful duties, and it certainly shouldn’t be putting employers and local governments in the cross-fire of the Resistance’ ridiculous war on the Administration.

      • Some Daze are Diamonds

        Double standards? Like Greg Diamond accusing his enemies of being drunk while defending your 5th DUI?

        • Or me pointing out that the crazed trigger-happy cop on Palais St seemed drunk? Some people thought THAT was a double standard. Some people are really DUMB.

          • “Crazed”? “Seemed drunk”? Were you there, Vern? Exactly how do you remotely judge the man’s sanity or his BAC?

          • Matthew, are you the only person in Anaheim who didn’t watch all those videos?

            Oh, right. Never mind.

            • I did watch all those videos, Vern. Please explain your magic method of determining from them whether the officer was “crazed” or drunk? Is that some previously hidden power you possess?

              Those videos also show one man surrounded by more than dozens teenage males who behavior was escalating into assault. They were acting like a pack – behavior you choose to ignore.

              Unlike you, I have also spoken with a number of the residents on that street. They have a very different perspective from you – or the radicals who rioted on their block last year and mounted their ridiculous little La Raza protest this past February.

  5. CD, SP I totally agree. No Sanctuary State protect the state, protect the citizens of the state.

  6. Nelson is right, Orange County Jail needs the ability to work with ICE. If an inmate has a federal warrant for drug trafficking or gun running no one would have an issue with OCSD contacting DEA or ATF respectively. Cooperation among law enforcement is essential.

  7. I am happy to see Orange County leadership taking a stand against CA liberal sanctuary advocates. CA leadership has overstepped their authority and assumed all CA citizens support such dramatic unheard-of madness. California is not a nation. Their behavior has made CA cities unsafe for law-abiding citizens, problems for law enforcement and made us an adversary of our own Federal government. I am a US citizen that lives in Californian, like all others. Liberal Sacramento stupidity must stop, people.

    The federal government is accountable for Immigration laws and all states adhere to those laws. It’s NOT negotiable. I hope the Federal government, cities, and county’s combine efforts and slap CA leadership upside their heads; make them feel their poor judgment. NO state has explicit authority to ignore Federal laws and act in its own distorted interests. California is one of fifty States that make up the United States of America. God bless America.

  8. vern: Kate Steinle’s case is not a case against a race rather it is a case against illegal immigration. Had the individual that shot Kate Steinle been been prevented from going back out onto our streets, she would still be here. Simple as that. This was not his first arrest here after illegally entering our country and it was not his first crime while here, illegally. He had been deported multiple times.

    It is what it is, if he was not here, Kate Steinle would be.

    I will hold off from saying what I think of your commentary. I cannot believe this blog gives you a forum for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Skip to toolbar