Posted on 04/26/2017 7:36:44 AM PDT by COUNTrecount
The Department of Justice is not worried about a federal court decision Tuesday that temporarily blocks enforcement of Trump’s executive order that targeted federal funding of “sanctuary cities.”
A spokesman said the DOJ will continue on with its efforts to restrict federal law enforcement grants from jurisdictions that restrict the federal government from accessing information about the immigration status of an individual.
The judge sided with the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, California, which both were worried about potentially losing billions in federal money. The DOJ lawyers argued that Santa Clara would have lost less than $1 million in funding. However, the judge said that the order was written too broadly.
Judge William Orrick, an Obama-appointee, also pointed to public comments from Trump administration officials which made the order “unclear.” He said that the administration took a “schizophrenic approach.”
Orrick did uphold the government’s ability to enforce conditions of existing grants and 8 U.S.C. 1373, the federal statute which pertains to sanctuary cities. Ian Prior, a Department of Justice spokesman, said in a statement that the “department will continue to enforce existing grant conditions and will continue to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373.”
“Further, the order does not purport to enjoin the Department’s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions,” Prior added.
The DOJ lawyers said during oral argument that the executive order was “merely an exercise of the president’s ‘bully pulpit’ to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement.”
The judge was correct in that the order signed by Trump spoke about all federal funds, not just the law enforcement grants that Attorney General Jeff Sessions said would be targeted. The order said that all jurisdictions “that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes.”
This would mean that major cities, counties, and states could potentially lose billions of dollars. The DOJ, however, would only cut off federal law enforcement grants which amount to less than half a billion dollars in total.
Another issue brought up in the case was that the Trump administration has been unclear at times about what is a sanctuary jurisdiction. Judge Orrick wrote that the order “equates jurisdictions that refuse to honor detainer requests with the term ‘sanctuary jurisdictions.'”
“It further directs the Attorney General to bring ‘enforcement action’ against jurisdictions with policies that ‘hinder the enforcement of Federal law,'” Orrick added.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement identified in March 118 jurisdictions that “hinder the enforcement of federal law” by ignoring immigration detainers or through other policies.
However, Attorney General Sessions has made clear in recent remarks that only jurisdictions that don’t comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 will lose grants.
Sessions sent letters Friday to nine jurisdictions that were identified by the Obama administration as possibly breaking this law. They are Chicago, New Orleans, Philadelphia, New York City, California, and Clark County, Nev., Milwaukee County, Wis., and Cook County, Ill.
“If it turns out sanctuary city is defined as Section 1373 compliance, then….there is no sanctuary city debate,” Providence, Rhode Island Mayor Jorge Elorza said after a meeting with the attorney general Tuesday.
Cue the drama queen “NeverTrump-Trump Supporters” who will not apologize for their terribly negative comments about how “ineffective” Trump is...
IOW, the Democrat party bundler who wears a robe is not going to dictate immigration policy.
Kudos, Mr. Sessions and PRESIDENT TRUMP.
Just arrest the officials in charge, quit screwing around!
The proper response by AG Sessions would be INDICTMENTS, ARRESTS, And Criminal Prosecutions for All the Elected Officials in these counties for Harboring and Aiding Illegal Aliens.
They are RAMPANT here on FR aren’t they? Can you imagine if these people were watching Eisenhower and Patton and Bradley and MacArthur during WWII??
“Dammit, why haven’t the Nazis been pushed out of Paris yet? How come Tojo still has those islands?! And by the way we are moving way too slow against Rommel in Africa. I am FED UP with this leadership. They were hired to win the war.”
Haha!
FR has been invaded with NeverTrump drama queens seeking to lambaste Trump FOR NO TRUE REASON!
Apologize? Keep drinking that kool-aid as Trump’s presidency slips into the abyss.
There must be something negative you can say about this direction, 18 hours after your collective mental and emotional breakdowns.
Lemme guess. You are all Woody Allen personalities, right? Maybe effeminate?
The judge’s logic is full of holes. Many times a department or agency has funds appropriated for a project that later on becomes unnecessary. They can just not spend the money and do not require a congressional ‘mother may I’.
One of the elected officials protecting illegal aliens from our laws is President Trump through his continuance of DACA.
I am not sure you understand what is happening .
Do you think this means these cities Can no longer be sanctuary cities..or do you think it means the definition under the law is now greatly narrowed and the mayors can still have sanctuary cities.
Also why is Trump saying see you at Scotus if this is a victory. Really..I think a lot of people here dont understand this whole thing.
“Apologize? Keep drinking that kool-aid as Trump’s presidency slips into the abyss.”
Troll.
Tell the “GOP Briefing Room” forums we said hi.
Sessions had a meeting with mayors. Read what came from that...
I really dont think posters on this thread have read what came from that meeting.
Narrow definition. Narrow withholding funds. Allowing states rights
Abyss? Gorsuch, cancellation of TPP, approval of Keystone pipeline, Jeff Sessions, Jim Mattis, enforcement of immigration laws, elimination of regulations, evisceration of EPA, MOAB, etc.
"Roast me! Hang me! Do whatever you please," said Brer Rabbit. "Only please, Brer Fox, please don't throw me into the abyss." LOL.
Btw..the gist of all of this that is ripe for Scotus is 1373 and the requirement to provide info if against State law.
It seems to me sessions is saying provide the info as per 1373 or no funds..of some amount.
So two prongs to address if State law says no info.
no clear cut winner. Justices could flip
The simplest solution here is to grant large sums to compliant cities and grant $1 to sanctuary cities.
They get their grant money either way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.