Attorney General Jeff Sessions is making the formal announcement Wednesday during remarks at the Annual Law Enforcement Legislative Day hosted by the California Peace Officers’ Association in Sacramento.

“The Department of Justice and the Trump administration are going to fight these unjust, unfair, and unconstitutional policies that have been imposed on you,” Sessions said in released excerpts ahead of the address. “We are fighting to make your jobs safer and to help you reduce crime in America. And I believe we are going to win.”

The lawsuit focuses on three separate California laws: Senate Bill 54, Assembly Bill 450 and AB103 – a trio of legislation making up the state’s “sanctuary” policy.

The suit asks the federal court to block the enforcement of these laws statewide.

“Sanctuary jurisdictions” have dominated the national dialogue on immigration in recent years, with critics saying it creates a safe haven for criminal aliens, while proponents arguing it provides a safer environment for the undocumented to come forward and report crimes without fear of deportation.

In response to Sessions’ actions, California Democratic leaders swiftly responded, condemning the lawsuit as a political stunt.

“At a time of unprecedented political turmoil, Jeff Sessions has come to California to further divide and polarize America,” Gov. Jerry Brown tweeted.

“Trump and Sessions think they can bully California – but it won’t work,” U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, D-Calif., added.

But the Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen praised the decision.

“California has chosen to purposefully contradict the will and the responsibility of the Congress to protect our homeland,” Nielsen said in a statement. “I appreciate the efforts of Attorney General Sessions and the Department of Justice to uphold the rule of law and protect American communities.”

The decision by the Justice Department is perhaps the boldest yet in taking aim at the alleged obstruction of federal law, going on offense after a series of suits filed against the administration from California’s attorney general Xavier Becerra on issues like immigration and climate change.

“No matter what happens in Washington, #California will stay the course and enforce all our laws and protect all our people. That’s how we keep our communities safe. #Immigration,” Becerra wrote in response to the news.

More recently, Oakland mayor Libby Schaaf grabbed national headlines after she warned area residents of upcoming ICE raids, with agency officials accusing her of promoting lawless and undercutting federal authority.

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ Jan. 4

While none of the four U.S. attorneys’ offices in California have taken high-profile enforcement steps to date, at least two may be inclined to take on legal marijuana in some way – especially given that Sessions has already complained that pot being grown in the state is being trafficked in other states where it remains illegal.

In the California Eastern District based in Sacramento, President Donald Trump nominated McGregor “Greg” Scott to serve as U.S. attorney, returning to a job he held under President George W. Bush. He was sworn in Dec. 29. His large district is mostly inland California, from the Oregon border to the Inland Empire, including Humboldt County, ground zero for the Golden State’s pot culture.

Cannabis advocates worry about Sacramento U.S. attorney

While the Sacramento Bee editorial page hailed Scott’s selection, the Bee’s newsroom reported earlier this month that marijuana advocates are on edge because of Scott’s history of aggressively targeting medical marijuana in his first stint on the job. Scott’s office received national attention in 2008 when it secured 20-year and 21-year sentences for two Modesto men whom Scott said were running a criminal empire – not a clinic.

The Cal NORML marijuana advocacy group blasted Scott for urging local prosecutors to refer medical marijuana cases to his office, calling it “particularly notorious for harsh sentences against medical marijuana defendants.”

“He used to be a hardcore, anti-cannabis drug warrior,” Sebastopol criminal defense attorney Omar Figueroa told the Bee. “I hope he has evolved.”

Scott offered no overview of his intentions beyond issuing a statement saying he would review marijuana cases “in accordance with our district’s federal law enforcement priorities and resources.”

Cartel prosecutor takes reins in San Diego with tough statement

The other California U.S. attorney who might be inclined to take a hard line on pot is Adam Braverman in the San Diego-based Southern district. Braverman was sworn in Nov. 16 after years as a hard-charging prosecutor in the San Diego office targeting drug cartels which operate on both sides of the U.S-Mexico border. His statement echoed Sessions’ remarks that individual states should have no expectations that federal drug laws would go unenforced just because their voters or legislators had approved legal use of pot.

“The Department of Justice is committed to reducing violent crime and enforcing the laws as enacted by Congress. The cultivation, distribution and possession of marijuana has long been and remains a violation of federal law,” Braverman’s statement said. “We will continue to utilize long-established prosecutorial priorities to carry out our mission to combat violent crime, disrupt and dismantle transnational criminal organizations, and stem the rising tide of the drug crisis.”

Earlier this month, former prosecutor and criminal defense lawyer Nicola Hanna was named interim U.S. attorney for the Central District, based in Los Angeles. Hanna, who is expected to get the job on a permanent basis, has kept quiet on Sessions’ announcement. His office refers questions to Justice Department headquarters in Washington.

Any crackdown on cannabis might be difficult just from a resources perspective for Hanna. His office serves an area with 18 million residents in Los Angeles and Orange counties and five adjacent counties – by far the most heavily populated of any office. It is often responsible for complex cases involving not just drugs and white-collar crime but also national security.

Views of acting U.S. attorney in San Francisco unclear

In the Northern District based in San Francisco, U.S. Attorney Brian Stretch resigned within days after Sessions’ policy change, though he said the decision was unrelated.

Alex G. Tse is serving as the acting U.S. attorney after being Stretch’s second-in-command. Tse has kept a low profile to date on Sessions’ policy reversal.

However, his office was known for its aggressive targeting of Oakland’s Harborside Health Center, which the Feedly marijuana news website says is “perhaps the state’s best-known dispensary.”

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in San Francisco, threw out prosecutors’ case against Harborside in 2016, saying they had ignored Congress’ direction that medical-marijuana dispensaries operating within state laws should be left alone.

With the legal sale of recreational marijuana a week away, local governments across California have adopted policies on where and when permitted legal sellers can operate, following the ground rules set up by

But despite more than 13 months of lead time, state officials still haven’t figured out how to deal with a crucial problem: the fact that federally regulated banks can’t accept deposits or have any financial relationship with marijuana vendors or growers, given that pot sales and consumption remain illegal under federal law.

Cash-only medical marijuana dispensaries authorized by a 1996 ballot measure have long been plagued by armed robberies. With recreational pot sales expected to be a multibillion-dollar industry, pot-related crime could skyrocket.

Two separate proposals have emerged after what state officials say are months of discussions.

One under consideration by Gov. Jerry Brown’s administration seems a long shot given that it relies on the cooperation of the Trump administration – specifically Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has opposed individual states’ efforts to legalize marijuana for recreational use.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported that the state had met with 65 banks and credit unions, as well as with federal regulators, about having one bank in California established as a clearinghouse for all marijuana-related accounts of various banks throughout the state. The “central correspondent” bank would process all transactions involving pot dollars.

Seeking assist from federal government after suing it 24 times

Brown administration officials appeared hopeful that this concept would go over well with federal regulators because, at least in theory, it would make it easier to keep close track of marijuana industry finances, and to spot suspicious payments or transfers of funds.

The problem for California is that this proposal is built on the presumption that the federal government wants to help the state – which has already sued the Trump administration 24 times. While federal regulators have met with state officials on the pot-banking issue, the final decision on whether to cooperate is up to Sessions. At a Nov. 29 press conference, he said his office was taking a hard look at rolling back Obama administration rules that let states allow recreational marijuana after basic public safety and health standards were met.

“It’s my view that the use of marijuana is detrimental, and we should not give encouragement in any way to it, and it represents a federal violation, which is in the law and is subject to being enforced,” Sessions said, according to the McClatchy News Service. “We are working our way through to a rational policy, but I don’t want to suggest in any way that this department believes that marijuana is harmless and people should not avoid it.”

Chiang: Consider setting up a state bank for pot transactions

The second proposal – touted by state Treasurer John Chiang at a Nov. 7 news conference – is to have the state study the feasibility of opening its own bank to deal with marijuana financial transactions. That was based on the recommendations of Chiang’s cannabis bank working group.

The group’s 32-page report also suggested California work with other states in setting up a network of such institutions. But the report noted the many obstacles to establishing such a bank, including the likelihood that it ultimately would still be subject to federal regulation and thus to Sessions’ objections.

Chiang told reporters at his November news conference that “a definitive, bulletproof solution will remain elusive” without changes in federal banking laws.

But the 2018 gubernatorial candidate said that “is not an excuse for inaction.”

The California Legislature enters the final week of its 2017 session with ambitious measures on immigration, renewable energy and housing still up in the air.

Two of the measures have been championed by state Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles.

One – SB54 – would put relatively strong limits on how much local and state law enforcement agencies could cooperate with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement branch of Homeland Security and other federal immigration authorities.

Labelled the “sanctuary state” bill by critics and de Leon alike, it passed the state Senate in March. But law enforcement officials’ concerns have won a friendlier reception in the Assembly, where the bill appears stalled despite approvals from three committees. Some sheriffs have warned the bill would put California on a collision course with Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the U.S. Justice Department, which has already acted to withhold funds from “sanctuary cities” on the grounds that the federal government alone sets immigration policy.

Sessions’ recent announcement that the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program would end in six months could give fresh fuel to the “sanctuary state” bill. Under the program, an estimated 200,000 California youths who were brought here as children have some legal rights. Protecting this group from deportation or other negative consequences has been a priority of state Democrats since Trump’s election last November.

Another high-profile de Leon bill also passed the Senate in May before facing a cooler reception in the Assembly. SB100 would set a goal for state utilities of having 60 percent of their electricity generated by renewable sources by 2030 – up from the present goal of 50 percent – and require utilities to plan to be 100 percent renewable by 2045.

While the measure has passed three Assembly committees, most recently the appropriations panel on Sept. 1, its future may depend on whether Gov. Jerry Brown provides a last-minute boost. Utility lobbyists say the state is already making perhaps the biggest gains of any large state in shifting to renewable energy and that they don’t need a further push by Sacramento.

Housing bond, real-estate fee may be packaged

Two measures to address the state’s housing crisis – including one measure long seen as a slam dunk – also await final approval.

The first – SB3 by Sen. Jim Beall, D-San Jose – won some Republican support when it passed the Senate. It would ask California voters to approve $4 billion in general obligation bonds next year to pay for construction of affordable rental housing and “smart growth” projects near transit hubs and to revitalize the state’s veteran home loan program, which is expected to use up all of its present funding at some point in 2018.

SB3 was initially expected to be approved late last month. Reports over the weekend suggested that delays may be because of the desire to package SB3 as part of a comprehensive deal that could rescue the second high-profile housing bill – SB2 by Sen. Toni Atkins, D-San Diego. To generate an estimated $250 million a year in reliable, permanent funding for affordable housing projects, it would increase fees by $75 on some real-estate transactions.

Because it is a fee hike, it needs two-thirds support from both houses to advance to Brown’s desk. In July, it passed the Senate with the bare minimum of 27 votes. But insiders have been skeptical for weeks that the measure can get the 54 votes necessary to pass the Assembly. No Republican Assembly members back the bill, meaning all 54 Assembly Democrats would have to be yes voters for it to advance.

A Los Angeles Times report last month suggested that was unlikely because some Assembly Democrats in swing districts didn’t want to vote for a measure that could be depicted as a tax hike after having already voted to raise fuel taxes earlier this year.

An immigration-enforcement headache anticipated by President Trump’s sister — federal appellate court 

They say federal court rulings impede their ability to cooperate with demands from Attorney General Jeff Sessions that they cooperate more fully with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in turning over undocumented immigrants with criminal records.

At issue is how long jails and prisons can hold undocumented immigrants for pickup by ICE agents after their sentences are completed. The present practice in California is to give agents up to 48 hours. But especially in heavily populated areas with many jails — such as the Los Angeles region — ICE agents struggle to meet this deadline in picking up criminals set to be released.

Last month, Sessions blasted local authorities for being unwilling to hold these inmates up to 96 hours — four days — after their scheduled release and said failing to do so amounted to defiance of the federal government. A list released by the Justice Department cited eight California law enforcement agencies that it said had “refused” detainer requests: the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, the Los Angeles Police Department and local jailers in Alameda County, Madera County, Santa Clara County, Sacramento County, Santa Barbara County and the city of Anaheim.

Sheriffs say federal court ruling blocks longer jail detentions

But the California State Sheriffs’ Association says that only giving ICE 48 hours to get released criminals is not a matter of defiance. It’s to avoid costly lawsuits.

Association officials cited U.S. Magistrate Judge Janice M. Stewart’s 2014 ruling in a case from Clackamas County, Oregon, in which an undocumented immigrant accused of domestic violence, Maria Miranda-Olivares, was detained beyond the normal release time at ICE’s request. Stewart cited a federal appellate court ruling from earlier in 2014 that said ICE requests were just that — requests — and were not legally binding. She ruled that Miranda-Olivares could sue Clackamas County for unlawful detention.

The circumstances of the appeals case — Galarza v. Szalczyk — were somewhat different than the Oregon case. It dealt with a U.S. citizen who was detained at length by local authorities in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, then released by ICE agents after they determined he was a citizen, as claimed.

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that threw out Ernesto Galarza’s lawsuit alleging illegal detention by Lehigh County. (Galarza had previously settled his lawsuit against ICE and its agents.) The opinion, written by Judge Julio M. Fuentes, cited a long list of precedents in which requests from ICE and its predecessor agency, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, were treated by courts and the federal agency itself as nonbinding. Fuentes’ key finding:

“Under the Tenth Amendment, immigration officials may not order state and local officials to imprison suspected aliens subject to removal at the request of the federal government. Essentially, the federal government cannot command the government agencies of the states to imprison persons of interest to federal officials.”

Trump’s sister warned of ‘enormous ramifications’

But one of the three appellate judges who heard the Galarza appeal — Trump’s sister — dissented from Fuentes’ ruling and lamented the fact that the Obama administration had not filed an amicus brief:

“I am deeply concerned that the United States has not been heard on the seminal issue in this appeal, an issue that goes to the heart of the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. And make no mistake about it. The conclusion reached by my friends in the Majority that immigration detainers issued pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 do not impose any obligation on state and local law enforcement agencies to detain suspected aliens subject to removal, but are merely requests that they do so, has enormous implications and will have, I predict, enormous ramifications,” Barry wrote.

Sacramento County Sheriff Scott Jones told the Los Angeles Times that state sheriffs had urged the Obama administration without success to appeal the Oregon ruling. Jones and other sheriffs interviewed by the Times said they had explained the bind they were in to Trump administration officials. But that didn’t deter Sessions from his criticism.