The lawsuit is the latest in a legal back and forth between the Trump administration and deep-blue California, which have filed lawsuits against one another over everything from so-called sanctuary city policies to rolling back protections for birth control over Obamacare. | AP Photo/Charlie Riedel Legal Judge rules in favor of Trump administration in California federal lands case

The Trump administration scored a legal victory on Thursday when a federal judge in California blocked a state law that sought to limit the transfer of federal lands.

The California legislature passed Senate Bill 50, which would give the California State Lands Commission the first right of refusal over government proposals to sell federal land, in 2017. Environmentalists encouraged its adoption to allay fears that the Trump administration would sell large swaths of federal land to be used for drilling, mining or real estate development.


But the Justice Department sued the state in April, with federal officials claiming that the law already slowed down a number of planned transfers.

In its ruling handed down Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, Judge William Shubb said the California law violated the Constitution because it interferes with the federal government’s right to regulate the sale of federal property.

California Playbook newsletter Our must-read briefing on politics and government in the Golden State. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“SB 50 may not expressly name the federal government as its intended object of regulation, but that does not mean the law does not directly regulate the United States,” the ruling reads.

Shubb took issue with California’s argument that Senate Bill 50 was necessary to protect “unique” or “sensitive” lands, writing in his ruling that the law does not, “for example, enumerate a set of characteristics associated with ‘sensitive’ or ‘unique’ lands and then subject some federal lands to a right of first refusal because they meet the relevant statutory definition of ‘uniqueness.’”

“Rather, SB 50 uncritically uses federal administrative and institutional categories to target the federal government and those with whom it deals for regulation.”

The lawsuit is the latest in a legal back and forth between the Trump administration and deep-blue California, which have filed lawsuits against one another over everything from so-called sanctuary city policies to rolling back protections for birth control over Obamacare.

In a statement, Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: “The court’s ruling is a firm rejection of California’s assertion that, by legislation, it could dictate how and when the federal government sells federal land. This was a stunning assertion of constitutional power by California, and it was properly and promptly dismissed by the district judge. It is unfortunate that, in the interim, California forced both the Justice Department and the court to spend valuable time and resources to dispose of its baseless position."

At the time of the filing, Justice Department officials panned the law as yet another way to counter the Trump administration. Sessions noted that “California was admitted to the Union upon the express condition that it would never interfere with the disposal of federal land” and complained that he shouldn’t have to “spend valuable time and resources” on the suit.

“California has, once again, passed an extreme statute found in no other state to obstruct the federal government, this time by interfering with the conveyance of federal lands,” acting Associate Attorney General Jesse Panuccio said at the time. “This is another example of California ignoring federal law. No state legislature can, statute by statute, undermine the rule of law and the U.S. Constitution.”

A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not immediately return a request for comment and a spokesperson for the California State Lands Commission declined to comment on any plans to appeal the ruling, the deadline for which is Dec. 31.