The meeting was the latest development in an ongoing battle between California and the Trump administration over its sanctuary policies. The Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the state earlier this year and the disagreement is expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The main law in question, Senate Bill 54, the California Values Act, prohibits local law enforcement from diverting resources to assist federal immigration authorities and detaining citizens past their normal detention at ICE’s request. It’s backed by other laws, such as one that requires private companies to warn employees in advance of immigration inspections.

Since the announcement of the federal lawsuit, many municipalities, such as Orange County and the city of Los Alamitos, have expressed their opposition to sanctuary policies and tossed their weight behind the lawsuit.

Among those in attendance at the meeting: mayors from Los Alamitos, Barstow, San Jacinto and Escondido, Assemblywoman Melissa Melendez (CA-67), El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini, and Orange County Supervisor Michelle Steel. On the federal side, Department of Justice Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, Director of ICE Thomas Homan and House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy.

While supporters argue that the legislation makes the public safer by improving trust between police and immigrant communities, many in attendance pointed to public safety concerns as the reason for their opposition to sanctuary laws. 

“When Jerry Brown cares more about illegal criminals than he cares about the Hispanic community and the American citizens, this is insanity, and this is unconstitutional,” said Escondido Mayor Sam Abed. “This is personal to me. I’m going to work hard to make sure our community is safe.”

In response to the meeting, Gov. Jerry Brown tweeted that the president “is lying on immigration, lying about crime and lying about the laws of CA. Flying a dozen Republican politicians to flatter him and praise his reckless policies changes nothing. We, the citizens of the fifth largest economy in the world, are not impressed.”

California Supreme Court Chief Justice Tani Cantil-Sakauye, in her annual State of the Judiciary address on March 19, renewed calls for bail reform and making the legal system more attuned to the needs of Californians. She also doubled down on oblique criticisms of the White House.

The chief justice called then-Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy’s assertion in 1964 that the bail system is “a vehicle for systemic injustice” a “clarion for justice” in 2018.

Despite efforts in recent years to end the money bail system, they have hit roadblocks. Legislation to revamp bail was defeated last year after vigorous opposition from industry lobbyists and counties concerned with the implementation costs of the reforms.

While Cantil-Sakauye cited progress in criminal reforms over the last several years, she also spoke of a need to expand these efforts to civil cases. She called for the state to offer better self-help services to citizens who appear in court without attorneys. The problem is particularly acute in civil cases, where she cited a statistic of at least one side not having a lawyer in three-quarters of cases.

The address also contained clear references to President Donald Trump, even if he was never explicitly named.

“On the national front, we have unprecedented disruption, attacks on the free press, threats to the rule of civility, the Rule of Law, and judicial independence,” she told the joint session of the state Legislature.

The chief justice also addressed the U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions’ controversial announcement that the Justice Department would take the Golden State to court over its sanctuary city policies.

“We know that in California, California’s right to govern its own affairs is now being litigated in federal court. So it’s only natural that, nationally, the Law Day theme this year is ‘Separation of Powers: Framework for Freedom,’” said Cantil-Sakauye.

Cantil-Sakauye was appointed chief justice in 2011 by outgoing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Her 12-year term is set to expire Jan. 1, 2023.

“It is impossible to comply with both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California,” a Los Alamitos city agenda report spearheaded by councilman Warren Kusumoto reads. “In this situation, my belief is that the Constitution of the United States has precedence over the Constitution of the State of California.”

Los Alamitos officials voted 4 to 1 to approve the ordinance. However, it will not be officially voted on until April 16. 

“We are declaring sanctuary from California’s sanctuary law,” Kusumoto, who introduced the legislation, told Neil Cavuto on Fox News ahead of the vote.

The proposal was met with much controversy, as Monday’s meeting saw a line of residents out the door to try and get in. It was divided between supporters of President Trump and a hardline immigration agenda and others aligned with immigration rights activists, expressing their outrage at the measure.

Dozens took to the podium to address the council in support and opposition against the move.

“Keep the pressure up & urge the Los Alamitos City Council to do the right thing. Call, email, attend meetings, rally – your activism is need now more than ever,” the ACLU of Southern California swiftly tweeted following the evening meeting.

Supporters of the measure argue that the California law is unconstitutional because it subverts federal law in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause.

Now, a small Orange County city of around 12,000 residents finds itself at the center of a larger conversation about immigration policies in not just the Golden State – but across the U.S.

Under Senate Bill 54, passed late last year, local law enforcement is prohibited from inquiring as to a person’s immigration status, detaining suspected illegal immigrants for ICE, and from acting as federal immigration agents.

Conservatives and many law enforcement groups argue that “sanctuaries” provide a safe haven for violent criminal aliens, while liberals and immigration activists argue such jurisdictions encourage undocumented aliens to cooperate with police without fear of deportation.

Earlier this month, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against California over its defiance of federal immigration enforcement efforts, intensifying the battle between Washington and the state, which has centered itself as the flashpoint in fights over the Trump agenda.

But with its actions on Monday, Los Alamitos appears to be positioning itself as the “resistance” to the “resistance.”

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.

The amended Senate Bill 54 “prevents our state and local law enforcement resources from being diverted to tear families apart. California will protect our communities from the Trump administration’s radical and hateful immigration policy agenda,” de León said in a statement.

As part of the compromise, under the revised SB54, police can share information with federal authorities about inmates convicted of hundreds of crimes that were not part of the original language. These crimes include serious or violent felonies, felony drunk driving, unlawful possession of a deadly weapon and felony drug crimes.

But the bill still prohibits law enforcement from inquiring as to a person’s immigration status, detaining suspected illegal immigrants for ICE, and from acting as federal immigration agents.

“This bill protects public safety and people who come to California to work hard and make this state a better place,” Gov. Brown’s statement read.

Under the amendment, federal agents will be permitted to interview suspected illegal aliens in jails and to access state databases – actions that were previously prohibited.

The California Sheriffs Association still opposes the bill, despite the changes, believing it puts too great of a barrier between local enforcement and federal authorities.

Activists on the left largely praised the agreement. Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, called the deal a “victory for migrants,” according to the Sacramento Bee.

The bill must still be passed by the state Assembly.

SB54 comes amid a larger national debate about “sanctuary” policies, with conservatives and many law enforcement groups maintaining that they provide a safe haven for violate criminal aliens, while liberals and immigration activists argue the so-called “sanctuaries” encourage undocumented aliens to cooperate with police without fear of deportation.

The bill could also be a model for other states eager to push back against the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

For California, it’s just the latest act of defiance against the Trump agenda in Washington, as Attorney General Xavier Becerra on Monday sued the administration over its decision to rescind the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, arguing that doing away with the order violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, citing fears that the administration may use “Dreamer” data to find and deport them.

However, President Trump has said there will be “no action” to that effect for six months as Congress attempts to craft a legislative fix.

“I think everyone recognizes the scope and breadth of the Trump decision to terminate DACA hits hardest here,” Becerra said.

About one quarter of the 800,000 recipients of DACA live in the Golden State.

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.