Posted on 04/20/2018 7:18:21 AM PDT by Kalamata
Seventh Circuit imposes nationwide injunction on effort to withhold grants from 'sanctuary' locales President Donald Trump's efforts to punish so-called sanctuary cities around the country, as well as the state of California, suffered a serious legal blow Thursday when a federal appeals court in Chicago upheld a nationwide injunction against administration rules requiring localities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities in order to win public safety grants.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a nationwide injunction preventing Attorney General Jeff Sessions from imposing the new conditions on grant money as a way to penalize municipalities around the country who are refusing to work with federal immigration agents before releasing illegal immigrants charged or convicted of crimes.
The judges said in the ruling that their role was not to "assess the optimal immigration policies for our country."
Instead, the panel said its ruling aims to protect "one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government—the separation of powers."
The panel determined that Sessions tried to use "the sword of federal funding" to force state and local authorities to aid in immigration enforcement but did not have the power to do so because Congress, not the executive, has the "power of the purse."
In fact, the panel noted, Congress has pointedly refused to approve measures over the last year making the receipt of federal grants contingent on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
"It falls to us, the judiciary, as the remaining branch of the government, to act as a check on such usurpation of power," the panel stated in its opinion.
The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, which the Justice Department awards to local governments, are the federal dollars in question. The grants help pay for a broad range of crime-reducing programs.
Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley took issue with the Chicago judges' attempt to set national policy by responding to a legal fight to originally applied only to Chicago.
O'Malley said the department still believes it has the authority, "given by Congress," to apply conditions to federal grants that promote "cooperation with federal immigration authorities when the jurisdiction has an illegal alien who has committed a crime in their custody."
"Nationwide injunctions allow a single federal district judge to set policy by ordering relief outside the scope of a particular case," O'Malley said in a statement. "Many in the legal community have expressed concern that the use of nationwide injunctions is inconsistent with the separation of powers, and that their increased use creates a dangerous precedent."
He pledged to continue to fight to carry out the department's "commitment to the rule of law, protecting public safety, and keeping criminal aliens off the streets to further perpetrate crimes."
The Justice Department also cited an excerpt from one judge on the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel, Daniel Manion, who mainly agreed with his colleagues but took issue with imposing a nationwide injunction on the Trump administration's grant policy.
"An injunction, particularly a preliminary injunction, is an extreme remedy," he said. "A nationwide preliminary injunction is more extreme still."
"One should only be issued where it is absolutely necessary, and it is far from absolutely necessary here," Manion wrote.
"We are not the Supreme Court, and we should not presume to decide legal issues for the whole country," he added.
The appellate court's Thursday ruling upheld a previous injunction first issued in September by U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber.
The city of Chicago sued the Justice Department in August over the new Justice Department conditions imposed on the Byrne grant.
Chicago Corporation Counsel Edward Siskel hailed the ruling as a "resounding message sent all across the country." Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said the decision showed that the Trump administration could not bully the city into making a "false choice" between its values and federal funding.
In California, Kevin de Leon, the former top-ranking Senate Democrat who authored the state's so-called sanctuary state bill, called the ruling "another embarrassing loss" in Trump's "war on immigrants & sanctuary cities."
"The feds cannot commandeer our local law enforcement," tweeted de Leon, who is running against Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.). "We knew that. That's why the #CA Senate filed an amicus brief to fight it."
The appellate ruling only impacts the issue of whether the federal government can make federal grants contingent on local authorities' cooperation on immigration enforcement.
The Justice Department in early March also announced a lawsuit against the state of California over the constitutionality of its sanctuary state law, officially known as the California Values act.
De Leon, California governor Jerry Brown, and California attorney general Xavier Becerra have vowed to fight the suit in court. Becerra has signaled that he plans to ask that the lawsuit be moved from a Sacramento U.S. District Court judge to the courtroom of a federal judge in San Francisco.
[The judges said in the ruling that their role was not to “assess the optimal immigration policies for our country.” ]
But they will anyway.
[Instead, the panel said its ruling aims to protect “one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of our system of government—the separation of powers.”]
What a laugh. The Judiciary runs the country.
And who checks their power?
Well, if we had an Attorney General who actually could get up in the morning and find both of his feet at the end of his legs they might not be pulling this crap.
Corrupt libspeak:
Court denies Trump’s denial of law deniers!
But it was OK to withhold federal money for highways if the Federal speed limits were not implemented or school lunch money from schools that did not adopt Michele Obama’s menus. It is time for SCOTUS to put an end to these “Resistance” judges who ignore the law and legislate from the bench.
BS! BS! BS!
It is established that the executive office EXECUTES the law and its utter BS that this same judiciary had no problem when Obama used the same threats to cajole states into accepting Obamacare or enacting his disastrous school policies. Never mind the embezzlement of funds to his pet projects.
Now, suddenly, the executive office must spend the money in the most “liberal” interpretation of the law as defined by these political judges?!
BS!
States should now file a volley of lawsuits to demand federal funds without any riders - highway speed limits, gun control, etc.
Make the judiciary stand by their word
It was AG Sessions that was behind the initiative to cut funding for sanctuary states and cities. What else would you have him do?
Its NOT a law so ignoring it is not breaking a law.
The procedure should involve the treasurer coming to the governor with the news that the money didn’t show up. The court battles then begin in very protracted earnest.
Just don’t pay and then let them worry about collecting.
Judges love a little Dictatorship
>>It is time for SCOTUS to put an end to these “Resistance” judges who ignore the law and legislate from the bench.
************************************************************
Will SCOTUS restore our Republic? Gor-Sucks lastest vote dims hope.
A nationwide injunction issued by a district court judge.
If a lowly district judge can issue a ruling that pertains outside his jurisdiction, what exactly is the rationale for district courts and circuit courts?
The judge is wrong. Yes the power of the purse belongs to Congress to appropriate money. The president is not required to spend money they appropriate
Good question.
Slow walk and audit the grants until they go away.
Prosecute every misdeed.
Honestly, the depth of thought and analysis at FR was better before the purges. It seems that we are mostly left with under informed knee jerk reactionaries.
Though I still appreciate your thoughtful postings.
Arguable. The president also cannot impound funds.
Just as the Founders envisioned...
This was actually the plan if Felonia von Pantsuit had been elected.
The little federal judge-presidents wouldn't have gainsaid Herself, of course - but "things" would have been happening in a packed Supreme Court, like overturning Heller and other unsavory stuff, and the lower courts would have been jamming all kinds of cr@p up our keesters, like wide-open borders.
However, the executition rate can be decreased administratively at the agency level.
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.