Leticia T. Moreno, et al. v. Court of Appeal of California, Second Appellate District, Division Seven, et al.

Federal law fully occupies the field of alien •registration. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, . 401 (2012). Congress, the Attorney General, and the Secretary of Homeland Security regulate both government and private entities involved in alien registration. Information collected is strictly confiden­ tial under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1160(b), 1202(f), 1229a(c)(2)(B), 1304(b), 1361, 1429, and 1532(d). Section 1304(b) explicitly mandates that alien registration records remain confidential, reinforcing federal supremacy. Despite this, California’s Immigration Consul­ tants Act (ICA) now empowers non-aggrieved, non­ governmental entities to breach this federal confiden­ tiality and regulate federal practitioners. Subjecting persons authorized by federal law to injunctions by a plaintiff that lacks standing. Here, the state court has ordered the release of three decades of information protected by § 1304(b) to a non-aggrieved, non-governmental entity—solely to inspect for compliance with the ICA. Creating an untenable situation where compliance violates federal law, while noncompliance results in contempt of court. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a state may create a private cause of action allowing a non-aggrieved, non-govern­ mental entity to regulate federal practitioners.

2. Whether information collected by private entities at the request of the federal government and transmitted to it falls under the confidentiality protections afforded to federal records as intended by Public Law 93-579, Sec. 2.

3. Whether federal preemption bars California’s ICA from regulating practitioners and others assisting in alien registration. N \ \