{"id":12676,"date":"2025-08-21T10:03:04","date_gmt":"2025-08-21T08:03:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/?p=12676"},"modified":"2025-08-21T10:05:05","modified_gmt":"2025-08-21T08:05:05","slug":"die-unsichtbare-front-wie-washington-kalifornien-mit-strafdrohungen-ueberzieht-und-der-rechtsstaat-auf-dem-spiel-steht","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/kaizen-blog.org\/en\/die-unsichtbare-front-wie-washington-kalifornien-mit-strafdrohungen-ueberzieht-und-der-rechtsstaat-auf-dem-spiel-steht\/","title":{"rendered":"The Invisible Front - How Washington Bombards California with Criminal Threats and the Rule of Law Is at Stake"},"content":{"rendered":"

For a long time, we have documented the growing tensions between the federal government in Washington and the state of California only in passing, without placing the escalation at the center. Too much took place behind closed doors, the legal maneuvers were too opaque, the silence on both sides too calculated. But the most recent letters exchanged between the US Department of Justice and the office of Governor Gavin Newsom mark a new quality in the conflict - a front that emerges in the middle of the rule of law and can no longer be ignored. The trigger is a letter from Attorney General Pam Bondi, dated August 13, 2025, in which she openly threatens California with prosecution. Officials at the state and local level, according to the accusation, would by implementing California laws \"facilitate illegal immigration\" and thereby make themselves liable to prosecution. The attack is aimed at the centerpiece of California\u2019s migration policy - the sanctuary regulations that protect against the takeover of local authorities by federal immigration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Attorney General Pam Bondi<\/strong><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The response from Sacramento was not long in coming. On August 19, David Sapp, legal adviser in the office of Gavin Newsom, replied with a letter whose tone is both sharp and legally unshakable. California, Sapp wrote, is not only legally protected but acts in accordance with binding federal law. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has repeatedly confirmed that California has the right to exclude its authorities from active participation in federal immigration. Precedents such as United States v. California and City and County of San Francisco v. Barr had already brought down Washington\u2019s attempts to exert pressure through the withdrawal of funds or criminal allegations. The letter that David Sapp sent on August 19, 2025, to US Attorney General Pam Bondi reads like a legal slap in the face. After Bondi had threatened on August 13 with \"criminal prosecutions against state and local officials\" who allegedly \"use their official position to obstruct federal immigration enforcement\", California\u2019s legal adviser countered with devastating precision: these threats were not only legally baseless, but could themselves boomerang on the federal prosecutors involved. Sapp explicitly cites Rule 3.1 of California\u2019s professional rules, which states that lawyers may not initiate proceedings that \"have no probable cause\". Even more sharply formulated is Rule 3.8 for prosecutors: they have \"the responsibility of a minister of justice\" - anyone who therefore brings proceedings despite better knowledge violates fundamental ethical obligations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The legal reasoning that Sapp presents is overwhelming. He refers to United States v. California, where the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit made clear in 2019 that California \"has the right under the Tenth Amendment to refrain from supporting federal efforts\". In the case City and County of San Francisco v. Barr, the Justice Department\u2019s attempt to withhold funding failed - the court dismissed the argument as \"legally unfounded\". These precedents are binding, and any California lawyer who participates in prosecutions that ignore this established case law risks, according to Sapp\u2019s unmistakable warning, losing his license and could be confronted with an ethics complaint before the California Bar Association.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The explosiveness of this exchange of letters lies not only in the political clash but in the legal dimension: Sapp explicitly refers to the rules of the California Bar Association, which prohibit lawyers and especially prosecutors from pursuing or even threatening proceedings if there is no sufficient basis. Threats like those of the federal justice system could thus not only be constitutionally questionable but themselves constitute an ethical violation - up to disciplinary consequences for those federal prosecutors who participate in such threats. This clash is not the first of its kind. Washington has already tried before to put California in its place with similar methods. In the years 2018 to 2020, a bitter dispute erupted over auto emission standards, in which the federal government wanted to deny California its right to set stricter limits for exhaust gases. In the end, the courts prevailed: California retained its competence, while the federal government had to accept a painful defeat. The same was true of the attempt to legally slow down California\u2019s climate laws and programs to promote renewable energy - here too Washington was put in its place.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The pattern is unmistakable: whenever California sets its own standards - whether in climate protection, health care, or the protection of migrants - the federal government responds with threats, lawsuits, or the threat of financial sanctions. But just as regularly it fails at the fact that the federal system grants states rights that cannot easily be overridden.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What makes this conflict particularly explosive is the sheer dimension in which it is being fought. California is by no means just any state, but the fourth largest economy in the world - ahead of Germany. Only the US as a whole, China, and Japan have a higher gross domestic product. So whoever wants to put California in its place is not only taking on a regional actor but a global economic power. The attempt to undermine the political and legal autonomy of such a giant unfolds far greater explosive force than the appearance of a domestic dispute would suggest.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n

The Intel takeover and Trump\u2019s contradictory industrial policy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Parallel to this legal battle, an economic policy drama of historic dimension is unfolding. The Trump administration is negotiating a ten percent government stake in Intel - of all things, that Republican government that stages itself as the guardian of the free market. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick justifies this with remarkable chutzpah: the 7.8 billion dollars from Biden\u2019s CHIPS Act were a \"giveaway\", America should instead \"get the benefit of the deal\". Intel, which posted a loss of 19 billion dollars in 2024 and lost another 3.7 billion in the first six months of 2025, is facing layoffs of 25,000 employees - a quarter of the workforce. The irony could hardly be more biting: CEO Lip-Bu Tan, whom Trump had still called on August 7 to resign because of his earlier investments in Chinese technology companies, suddenly became a man with an \"amazing story\" after a hastily arranged White House visit. This volte-face shows Trump\u2019s transactional politics in pure form - loyalty is rewarded, opposition punished, and what was said yesterday no longer applies today. Lutnick assures that the government will not interfere in Intel\u2019s business and will only hold non-voting shares, but analysts are already speculating that companies wanting to ingratiate themselves with Trump could increasingly order Intel chips.<\/p>\n\n\n\n