美国第九巡回上诉法院的一个由三名法官组成的三人合议庭一致裁决，对这个“不再那么光明的州”公然违宪、企图限制移民和海关执法局（ICE）及其他联邦特工执行联邦移民法之举下达禁令，这丝毫并不令人意外。该合议庭做的事情正是联邦法院理应做的事情——维护美国宪法。
It is no surprise that a unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit just enjoined the blatantly unconstitutional attempt by the "No-Longer-So-Golden State" to impose restrictions on the ability of ICE and other federal agents to enforce federal immigration law. That panel was doing exactly what federal courts are supposed to do — uphold the U.S. Constitution.
10月14日，在“美国诉加利福尼亚州案”（U.S. v. California）中，法院将所谓的《无私刑者法案》（No Vigilantes Act，简称NVA）扔进了历史的垃圾堆。这项法律是该州持续阻挠联邦移民执法努力的一部分，其中包含州长和州官员对仅仅在努力履行执法职责的联邦特工进行的不懈公开攻击。这包括一些恶劣的言论，例如纽森将他们比作“独裁”国家暴徒般的“秘密警察”。
On October 14 in U.S. v. California, the court tossed the so-called "No Vigilantes Act" (NVA) onto the ash heap. This law was part of the state’s continuing effort to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, which has included relentless public attacks by the governor and state officials on federal agents just trying to do their job of enforcing the law. That includes noxious claims like Newsom likening them to the thuggish "secret police" of an "authoritarian" state.
该法案要求任何在加利福尼亚州行动的非制服“联邦执法人员”在履行联邦执法职责时“明显展示身份”。违反此要求的联邦特工可能会遭到该州的刑事起诉。
The NVA required any non-uniformed "federal law enforcement officer" operating in California to "visibly display identification" when carrying out federal law enforcement duties. A federal agent violating this requirement could be criminally prosecuted by the state.
正如第九巡回上诉法院所指出的那样，第六条中的“至高条款”将“本宪法及合众国法律……确立为全国的最高法律”。换句话说，联邦法律不仅凌驾于任何与之相抵触的州法律之上，而且它还要求实行所谓“政府间豁免”。根据“至高条款的政府间豁免部分……各州不得直接监管联邦政府的运作或财产。”合议庭就此问题引用了第九巡回上诉法院1996年的一项判决《布莱克本诉美国案》（Blackburn v. U.S.），但随后指出，这种认为各州不能干涉联邦职能的基本法律原则，可以一直追溯到我们历史中最具开创性的最高法院判决之一——《麦卡洛克诉马里兰州案》（McCulloch v. Maryland，1819年）。
As the Ninth Circuit pointed out, the Supremacy Clause in Article VI makes the "Constitution, and the Laws of the United States…the Supreme Law of the Land." In other words, federal law not only overrides any state law to the contrary, but it requires what is called "intergovernmental immunity." Under "the intergovernmental immunity component of the Supremacy Clause…states may not directly regulate the Federal Government’s operations or property." The panel cites to a 1996 Ninth Circuit decision, Blackburn v. U.S., on this issue, but then points out that this basic legal principle — that states cannot interfere in federal functions — goes all the way back to one of the most seminal Supreme Court cases in our history, McCulloch v. Maryland (1819).
最高法院在《麦卡洛克案》中表示：“消除其在自身范围内行动的一切障碍，并从而修改赋予下级政府的每一项权力，以使其自身的运作免受下级政府自身影响，这正是‘至高性’的本质。”这就是为什么“各州无权……阻碍、妨碍、加重或以任何方式控制国会为行使赋予中央政府的权力而制定的合宪法律之运作。”
"It is the very essence of Supremacy," said the Court in McCulloch, "to remove all obstacles to its action within its own sphere, and so to modify every power vested in subordinate governments, as to exempt its own operations from their own influence." That is why "States have no power … to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by Congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the General Government."
加利福尼亚州试图辩称，NVA是合宪的，因为它没有“实质性加重”联邦执法的负担。但第九巡回上诉法院也驳回了这一说法，称州法律直接监管“美国行为”的任何企图“都是无效的，不论受监管的活动对于联邦职能或运作是否必不可少，也不论州法律对该等职能或运作的干涉程度如何”。这项法律更糟糕的是它威胁要对联邦特工进行刑事起诉。
California tried to argue that the NVA was constitutional because it did not "substantially burden" federal law enforcement. But the Ninth Circuit shot that down, too, saying any attempt by a state law to directly regulate "the conduct of the United States…is void irrespective of whether the regulated activities are essential to federal functions or operations, and irrespective of the degree to which the state law interferes with such functions or operations." What made this law even worse was its threat to criminally prosecute federal agents.
这尤其具有讽刺意味，因为加利福尼亚州试图用NVA做的事情，正是最高法院在136年前的另一个开创性案件《内格尔案复审》（In re Neagle，1890年）中明确告诉该州不能做的事情，该案也被第九巡回上诉法院合议庭引用。该判决读起来就像一部好莱坞电影，但也表明了长期以来加利福尼亚州的州官员们的行为是多么怪异，而不仅仅是在当今白热化的政治舞台上。
This is especially ironic because California attempted to do with the NVA what the Supreme Court specifically told the state it couldn’t do 136 years ago in another seminal case, In re Neagle (1890), also cited by the Ninth Circuit panel. That decision reads like a Hollywood movie but also demonstrates just how bizarre state officials have acted in California for a long time, not just in today’s heated political arena.
《内格尔案复审》涉及加利福尼亚州试图以谋杀罪起诉一名美国法警。法警大卫·内格尔（David Neagle）当时担任最高法院大法官斯蒂芬·菲尔德（Stephen Field）的保镖，这项工作美国法警局（U.S. Marshal’s Service）至今仍在执行。在圣华金谷的一个火车站，特里试图暗杀菲尔德后，内格尔开枪打死了加利福尼亚州最高法院前首席大法官大卫·特里（David Terry）。特里以暴力脾气闻名，显然对菲尔德怀恨在心，起因是一起涉及特里现任妻子先前离婚的法院判决。
In re Neagle involved the state of California trying to prosecute a U.S. Marshal for murder. Marshall David Neagle was acting as a bodyguard for Supreme Court Justice Stephen Field, a job the U.S. Marshal’s Service still carries out today. He shot and killed the former chief justice of California’s state supreme court, David Terry, at a railway station in the San Joaquin Valley, after Terry tried to assassinate Field. Terry was known for his violent temper and apparently had a grudge against Field for a court decision involving the prior divorce of Terry’s current wife.
第九巡回上诉法院引用了最高法院在内格尔案中的判决意见：甚至连那些“最无可置疑且最具普遍适用性的州法律，例如有关谋杀的法律，也不被允许管辖根据美国法律行事并为执行美国法律而行动的美国法警的行为。”当年加利福尼亚州无法因美国法警在履行职责而起诉他，如今也无法对“根据美国[移民]法律行事并为执行美国法律而行动”的联邦特工进行刑事起诉。故事结束，案件结束，违宪的州法律结束。
The Ninth Circuit quoted the Supreme Court’s opinion in Neagle that even the "most unquestionable and most universally applicable of state laws, such as those concerning murder, will not be allowed to control the conduct a marshal of the United States acting under and in pursuance of the laws of the United States." California couldn’t prosecute a U.S. Marshall then for doing his job, and it cannot criminally prosecute federal agents now who are "acting under and in pursuance of the [immigration] laws of the United States." End of story, end of case, end of unconstitutional state law.
顺便说一句，加利福尼亚州那些对宪法一无所知的立法者通过的第二项法律——《无秘密警察法》（No Secret Police Act），已经因同样的原因被下级法院下令禁止执行。该法律规定联邦特工佩戴“隐蔽或遮挡其面部身份的面罩”为刑事犯罪。要知道，正是这些特工一直被伪装成抗议者的暴徒妖魔化、人肉搜索、跟踪到家、骚扰、开车冲撞以及开枪射击。
By the way, a second law enacted by California’s constitutionally ignorant legislators, the "No Secret Police Act," was already enjoined by a lower court for the same reason. That law made it a criminal offense for federal agents to wear "a facial covering that conceals or obscures their facial identity." You know, the same agents who have been villainized, doxxed, followed home, harassed, run down by cars, and shot at by thugs who masquerade as protesters.
正如第九巡回上诉法院正确认识到的那样，加利福尼亚州发生的无视法纪行为并不仅限于暴徒。或许纽森州长和加利福尼亚州议会真该补修几门关于宪法的补习课程了。
As the Ninth Circuit correctly recognized, the lawlessness occurring in California is not limited to thugs. Perhaps some remedial courses on the Constitution for Governor Newsom and the California legislature may be in order.