Judge permanently blocks Trump sanctuary cities order
Source: NBC News
SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump's executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration's argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
The judge had previously made the same arguments in a ruling that put a temporary hold on the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
"The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law," Department of Justice spokesman Devin O'Malley said in a statement late Monday. "The Justice Department will vindicate the President's lawful authority to direct the executive branch."
Read more: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-permanently-blocks-trump-sanctuary-cities-order-n822766
= new reply since forum marked as read
Although it is missing all the Russians!
https://swalwell.house.gov/issues/russia-trump-his-administration-s-ties
There are all sorts of charts out there and this is also impacting who is being brought in and the clashes.
Heard on the radio overnight and the key piece of the ruling (from a WaPo article) -
Orrick, in his summary of the case Monday, found that the Trump administration’s efforts to move local officials to cooperate with its efforts to deport undocumented immigrants violated the separation of powers doctrine as well as the Fifth and Tenth amendments.
“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Executive Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that they not be unduly coercive,” the judge wrote. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/11/21/federal-judge-blocks-trumps-executive-order-on-denying-funding-to-sanctuary-cities/
This is just plain old appropriations law. Congress (where the House originates) controls the power of the purse and designates the type, amount, and purpose of funds, including what they can and cannot be used for. The Executive Branch cannot add stipulations beyond what Congress has authorized.
way this executive order violates the constitution. I like this part:
“What is amazing about this is the thoroughness with which he dismisses the executive order,” she said. “The major ways in which an executive action can fail to be constitutional are all included in this suit, and Orrick is accepting the argument that literally every way the executive branch could violate the Constitution with regard to municipalities, this administration has.”
Especially interesting is the separation of powers issue, potentially far more enduring however it might be decided. Here's part of an argument for from TenthAmendmentCenter.com. (Love the internet, in spite of...
)
Can local authorities refuse to help the feds enforce federal law? In a word, yes. There is no legal obligation on the part of local authorities to help the feds with manpower or resources or data to enforce federal law within the jurisdiction of those local authorities.
During the Clinton administration, when Congress passed legislation that directed local law enforcement to enforce a federal gun registration scheme, the Supreme Court invalidated the statute. It ruled that the feds cannot commandeer local and state officials and compel them to enforce federal laws; the feds can enforce their own laws.
The federal compulsion, the court held, violated the Guarantee Clause of the Constitution, which guarantees a representative form of government in every state. If the feds could enter a state and nullify the will of elected state officials not to spend state tax dollars, that would unconstitutionally impair representative government in those states.
Can the feds withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to cooperate in the enforcement of federal law? Yes and no. ...
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2017/08/10/sanctuary-cities-and-the-rule-of-law/
