Skip to comments.DoJ Scores A Court Win Over Sanctuary City Grant Policies
Posted on 08/23/2017 1:52:43 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Ever since the Attorney General made it crystal clear that President Trump really wasn’t kidding when he said he would cut off DoJ funding to sanctuary cities, the response has been frantic. More than a dozen cities and counties, along with the state of California, have begun legal action challenging the right of the federal government to determine what the qualifications are to receive such grant money. Most of them will take quite a while to sort out, but the City of Richmond, California was one of the first out of the gate and managed to get their case in front of a federal judge already. It didn’t go well for them at all. (Daily Caller)
A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a sanctuary city in California challenging President Donald Trumps executive order withholding grants from jurisdictions that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities
The city of Richmond, Calif., filed suit in March challenging the constitutionality of the order. U.S. District Judge William Orrick dismissed the case Monday, finding Richmond did not have standing to challenge the law.
In his ruling dismissing the case, Orrick explained the city had not demonstrated that it had reason to believe Trumps order would be enforced against them, and therefore didnt have standing to bring a case.
So the case was tossed, but if you happen to be a fan of better border control and enforcement of immigration law I wouldn’t start popping the champagne corks just yet. The judge in this case didn’t make any sort of ruling over whether or not the DoJ policy is constitutional, correctly applied or anything else along those lines. All he really said was that the question was moot because Richmond lacked the proper standing to bring the challenge.
In order to have the case heard and decided, Richmond would have had to show some sort of damages, or at least potential damages from the policy. They haven’t refused any ICE detainers or done anything else to cement their sanctuary city status because ICE hasn’t issued them any. And nobody from the DoJ has singled them out for not being in compliance. That makes it pretty tough to show damages.
To figure out why they were attempting this in the first place you should look back to March of this year when the city brought the original suit. At the time they released all manner statements to the media bragging about how they were going to fight Trump’s executive order. Their position dates back to a 1990 “policy” approved by the city council which claimed they didn’t intend to “cooperate” with immigration officials. I’m not sure that Trump’s team even knew about it.
But who knows? Now that they’ve lost a court case, perhaps Jeff Sessions will add their name to the No Grants For You list just to make them feel better.
Just more non-news
“More than a dozen cities and counties, along with the state of California, have begun legal action challenging the right of the federal government to determine what the qualifications are to receive such grant money.”
So... the federal government (if they knuckle under to this) has no say in WHICH STATES it gives OUR MONEY TO.
The Feds will invoke the commerce clause and it’s a moot point after that. Especially if they say immigration is the life blood of commerce which all the libtards proclaim.
The Mouse That Roared.....
The first and only response to any and all lawsuits regarding this matter should be for AG Sessions to immediately empanel a Grand Jury to hear Evidence of Aiding, Abetting, and giving Harbor to Illegal Aliens. And then issue Indictments against the Public Servants in charge.
The Supreme court ruled unanimously that the United States sets immigration control and enforcement policy in US vs Arizona. The case is exactly in point and gives full authority to the Feds over cities or states in the enforcement of those laws. If they don’t cooperate they face obstruction of justice and loss of funding. This is no fight after that clear ruling.
Might as well sue that you want the court to stop prosecution against you in case you murder someone.
One at a time.
By 2024 America may be saved after all.
Right ruling, wrong reason.
Should have been dismissed with the reason that Congress has the exclusive and enumerated authority over federal spending and the exclusive and enumerated authority over immigration.
100% spot on but liberals dont like to be bound by rulings that they don’t agree with. One more reason why we as a nation, are headed to civil war.
Hard to believe any judge would allow cities and states to choose which federal laws they are going to follow and enforces. Of course, many will.
so they want to break Federal law after all these years telling states we have to follow federal law when it came to marriage, but now they want to break the laws , and get money for doing so.
This is the problem today with the left. They are just bratty little children who want their own ways regardless of what laws, or rules are in front of them, and if they do not get their own way then they have a baby tantrum, and think they are victims
Amen to that. Buffet style gov’t: take what you want, leave what you don’t want.
I have begun to agree with you. This country is very close to uncontrolled violence.Anything could set it off because the media has polarized the nation to extreme. When people appear on a public media asserting that Our President is not mentally stable we have a very serious problem. They are calling us unstable and I dont like it at all.
Wow, a Federal court could figure this out? Amazing.
Gee, to think that I worked on getting that shithole’s environment cleaned up. Should have let them drink the contaminated water as we can see that the brain damage has already been done to their leaders. Might as well turn the whole place into Zombieville if it isn’t like that already.
Need to put up a sign on the outskirts of town that says “Welcome to Stupidville”.
To #10. Judge Orrick. He’s a lefty. Look up his previous anti-ICE decision a few months ago. Not one of the good guys. Just protecting his legal ass.
Show me a grant where the entity providing that grant hasn't set the standards/requirements for receiving the grant.....
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.