Federal Judge Blocks Trump's Sanctuary City Executive Order

[CostinR]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...y-cities-order

A San Francisco judge has blocked enforcement of President Trump’s executive order barring federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County won preliminary injunctions to block Trump’s January order to withhold federal funds from cities that refuse to comply with federal authorities in enforcing immigration laws, according to multiple reports.

According to the judge’s order, the Justice Department can still withhold grants from places that don’t comply with the law, but it cannot enforce the order “in a way that violates the Constitution,” according to a Washington Post reporter.

The injunction says it “does nothing more than implement the effect of the Government’s flawed interpretation of the Order. It does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants ... nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such.”

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the temporarily ruling on Tuesday, following an April 14 ruling on the case.

The Obama-appointed judge ruled that the order violated the Constitution by attempting to punish local governments by seeking to “deprive local jurisdictions of congressional allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard.”

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” Orrick ruled.

The California governments that sued over the order argue that more than $2 billion in federal funding could be at stake.

The ruling will remain in place while the lawsuit moves through the court.

The Trump administration may ask the U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco to overturn the ruling, Bloomberg reported.

Imagine that, the Executive Branch can't just decide whether or cities get funds that Congress has appropriated for them already and that the courts will prevent any overreach of executive power even when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Ann Coulter is on suicide watch. Her wet dreams of anchor baby deportations shattered.

[Rafoel]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...y-cities-order



Imagine that, the Executive Branch can't just decide whether or cities get funds that Congress has appropriated for them already and that the courts will prevent any overreach of executive power even when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Ann Coulter is on suicide watch. Her wet dreams of anchor baby deportations shattered.

Doesn't matter. Now that Gorsuch was appointed any attempt to sabotage Trump will get overturned in Supreme Court.

[CostinR]

Doesn't matter. Now that Gorsuch was appointed any attempt to sabotage Trump will get overturned in Supreme Court.

That is not how the Supreme Court works.

[Barnabas]

Doesn't matter. Now that Gorsuch was appointed any attempt to sabotage Trump will get overturned in Supreme Court.

Gorsuch is vanilla as it gets. Don't expect him to side with trump on every issue. He could always go the other way.

[Wyrt]

Of course it was blocked. The president doesn't have the power to impose economic sanctions on US states or cities. Hopefully the conservatives on the Supreme Court will not shit on the constitution just to side with their party preference.

[mage21]

So the federal government can sue states to prevent them from enforcing immigration law, but the federal government cannot compel states to cooperate with immigration law? That's an interesting situation. Sure seems lopsided towards people who favor illegal immigration.

[kasuke06]

Ah the left. "Free speech is MY constitutional right! not yours!"

[Slicer299]

http://thehill.com/homenews/administ...y-cities-order



Imagine that, the Executive Branch can't just decide whether or cities get funds that Congress has appropriated for them already and that the courts will prevent any overreach of executive power even when it comes to immigration enforcement.

Ann Coulter is on suicide watch. Her wet dreams of anchor baby deportations shattered.

The money being withheld comes from grants, grants always have stipulations like "You must follow the law" to receive them. Sanctuary cities who refuse to follow and enforce federal immigration laws can absolutely be declared ineligible to receive grant money. And the courts have zero authority over that grant money. The judge's order is illegal and Trump has zero obligation to follow it.

It's no different than a judge all of a sudden ruling that the federal Pell Grant can't be denied to felons and people with drug convictions. Because, again, all federal grants have stipulations that the recipients, whether they are private citizens or cities or states, obey the law. Any time a grant recipient, no matter who they are, violates federal law, the federal government has absolute authority to cut off their grant money.

If you think for once second that this ruling changes anything, you're delusional. We're one short step away from Trump federalizing the National Guard and sending them into to take control of cesspools like Berkeley and every "Sanctuary" city in the country. Liberals love to rage how everyone must obey SCOTUS on things like gay marriage, even though no actual federal gay marriage law has ever been passed by Congress. But they think they can ignore federal immigration laws and federal free speech laws, or any law they disagree with for that matter, and they get judges to issue illegal rulings based on politics and not the law. This ruling will never survive the Supreme Court, just like none of the rulings against his immigration bans will survive the Supreme Court.

And when that happens, every judge that issued one of these illegal rulings, and every mayor and every governor who ignored federal immigration laws, obstructed immigration authorities and harbored illegal aliens will find themselves rotting in federal prison for 10 to 20 years. The days of liberal lawlessness are over. This has nothing to do with race, you liberals have played that card to death. This is about liberals constantly breaking and ignoring laws they don't like. That all ended the day Hillary lost the election.

[triplesdsu]

Activist Judge from San Fran preemptively ruling against Trump. Color me surprised. /sarcasm.
It's definitely not the end of the matter. Though seeing how he has a republican congress and this would be a winning issue for them, it would be better if Trump did pass this through Congress, specifically in regards to the budget. It would also likely be faster than waiting for appeals, as he would need to get it past the far left 9th circuit if Im not mistaken.

[Machismo]

The money being withheld comes from grants, grants always have stipulations like "You must follow the law" to receive them. Sanctuary cities who refuse to follow and enforce federal immigration laws can absolutely be declared ineligible to receive grant money. And the courts have zero authority over that grant money. The judge's order is illegal and Trump has zero obligation to follow it.

It's no different than a judge all of a sudden ruling that the federal Pell Grant can't be denied to felons and people with drug convictions. Because, again, all federal grants have stipulations that the recipients, whether they are private citizens or cities or states, obey the law. Any time a grant recipient, no matter who they are, violates federal law, the federal government has absolute authority to cut off their grant money.

If you think for once second that this ruling changes anything, you're delusional. We're one short step away from Trump federalizing the National Guard and sending them into to take control of cesspools like Berkeley and every "Sanctuary" city in the country. Liberals love to rage how everyone must obey SCOTUS on things like gay marriage, even though no actual federal gay marriage law has ever been passed by Congress. But they think they can ignore federal immigration laws and federal free speech laws, or any law they disagree with for that matter, and they get judges to issue illegal rulings based on politics and not the law. This ruling will never survive the Supreme Court, just like none of the rulings against his immigration bans will survive the Supreme Court.

And when that happens, every judge that issued one of these illegal rulings, and every mayor and every governor who ignored federal immigration laws, obstructed immigration authorities and harbored illegal aliens will find themselves rotting in federal prison for 10 to 20 years. The days of liberal lawlessness are over. This has nothing to do with race, you liberals have played that card to death. This is about liberals constantly breaking and ignoring laws they don't like. That all ended the day Hillary lost the election.

The rulings on gay marriage were based on the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court was doing exactly what it was created to do, rule on the constitutionality of a law. You may not like the ruling, but it was legitimate in every single way. I'm not sure why you think a state is allowed to pass a law that infringes on the constitutional rights of individuals... because they cannot.

The issue with federal laws, is that the federal government has stated many times that such laws fall under their jurisdiction, and cannot be enforced by the states or local authorities. And yes, immigration laws are federal. All the cities are doing, is stating that are not going to go out of their way to help the federal government enforce those laws. If the feds want to enforce them, even within those cities, they are absolutely free to do so.

Now, when it comes to withholding federal funding, that creates a major problem, since people within those cities and states provided that tax revenue. If one argues that the federal government can withhold that money, then the local governments will say those people can withhold theirs.

[Ghostpanther]

You obviously have a limited understanding of our court system. One federal judge selected from San Francisco doesn't end discussion. San Francisco and other cities operate intentionally in direct conflict with federal law, releasing known criminals into the city. The executive branch absolutely has the authority to withhold funding due to non-compliance in the specific and established funds related to immigration enforcement. The AP article and justice department attorney put the amount of funds in question for the 2 areas in dispute to be 1 million. Less than these cities have allocated from the taxes paid by lawful US citizens to fund legal help.

This is a losing battle for the left, just as it was for Obama.

Exactly. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And they will have the final say. Not some liberal judge.

[Wyrt]

The money being withheld comes from grants, grants always have stipulations like "You must follow the law" to receive them. Sanctuary cities who refuse to follow and enforce federal immigration laws can absolutely be declared ineligible to receive grant money. And the courts have zero authority over that grant money. The judge's order is illegal and Trump has zero obligation to follow it.

It's no different than a judge all of a sudden ruling that the federal Pell Grant can't be denied to felons and people with drug convictions. Because, again, all federal grants have stipulations that the recipients, whether they are private citizens or cities or states, obey the law. Any time a grant recipient, no matter who they are, violates federal law, the federal government has absolute authority to cut off their grant money.

If you think for once second that this ruling changes anything, you're delusional. We're one short step away from Trump federalizing the National Guard and sending them into to take control of cesspools like Berkeley and every "Sanctuary" city in the country. Liberals love to rage how everyone must obey SCOTUS on things like gay marriage, even though no actual federal gay marriage law has ever been passed by Congress. But they think they can ignore federal immigration laws and federal free speech laws, or any law they disagree with for that matter, and they get judges to issue illegal rulings based on politics and not the law. This ruling will never survive the Supreme Court, just like none of the rulings against his immigration bans will survive the Supreme Court.

And when that happens, every judge that issued one of these illegal rulings, and every mayor and every governor who ignored federal immigration laws, obstructed immigration authorities and harbored illegal aliens will find themselves rotting in federal prison for 10 to 20 years. The days of liberal lawlessness are over. This has nothing to do with race, you liberals have played that card to death. This is about liberals constantly breaking and ignoring laws they don't like. That all ended the day Hillary lost the election.

Sanctuary cities aren't breaking the law. Immigration laws are federal laws that need to be handled by federal police, not local police.

Trump, as president, has no authority to impose sanctions on US cities. Funds to cities and states are allocated by congress, not the president.

[PACOX]

You obviously have a limited understanding of our court system. One federal judge selected from San Francisco doesn't end discussion. San Francisco and other cities operate intentionally in direct conflict with federal law, releasing known criminals into the city. The executive branch absolutely has the authority to withhold funding due to non-compliance in the specific and established funds related to immigration enforcement. The AP article and justice department attorney put the amount of funds in question for the 2 areas in dispute to be 1 million. Less than these cities have allocated from the taxes paid by lawful US citizens to fund legal help.

This is a losing battle for the left, just as it was for Obama.

Still waiting for those Muslim bans to be reinstated.

[Time Sage]

Exactly. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And they will have the final say. Not some liberal judge.

Just because someone is liberal doesn't make them wrong.

[Kujako]

Exactly. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And they will have the final say. Not some liberal judge.

Just like the challenges to the immigration EOs! Oh wait...

[Wyrt]

Exactly. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And they will have the final say. Not some liberal judge.

Why are ruling made by conservative judges more valid than those made by liberal judges? Seeks rather biased.

[Draco-Onis]

Exactly. This will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. And they will have the final say. Not some liberal judge.

I seriously doubt even the conservative supreme court judges want to open pandora's box when it comes to state rights. As much as conservatives hate it states rights also work for liberal states too and if they reverse this it opens a wave of lawsuits against conservative states with precedence that the supreme court will have a hard time disputing.

[Ghostpanther]

Just like the challenges to the immigration EOs! Oh wait...

Those things take time.

- - - Updated - - -

Just because someone is liberal doesn't make them wrong.

I agree. But in this case, I think it does make a difference. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/04/2...william-orrick

[Kujako]

Those things take time.

Especially when you dont do them.

[Ghostpanther]

Especially when you dont do them.

Patience grasshopper.