Posted on 08/08/2019 8:39:58 AM PDT by jazusamo
Full title:Feds can’t withhold public safety grants for Oregon, city of Portland based on sanctuary law, judge rules
A judge has barred the Trump administration from withholding public safety grants from the state and the city of Portland over Oregon’s sanctuary law that directs police not to help federal agents enforce immigration policies.
U.S. District Judge Michael J. McShane also said the federal government can’t impose immigration-related conditions on the grant awards.
McShane, who is seated in Eugene, issued his 44-page decision late Wednesday in a case brought in November by Gov. Kate Brown, Oregon Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum and the city against President Donald Trump and U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
He found that two federal statutes unconstitutionally ban local and state governments and agencies from enacting laws or policies that limit communication with federal officials about immigration or someone’s citizenship status.
McShane ruled the statutes, identified as Sections 1373 and 1644 of the federal code, violate the 10th Amendment, which says any power not expressly given to the federal government falls to the states or their people.
Since 2017, the federal government has placed restrictions on Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants, known as JAG. The grants provide money to states, cities, counties and tribes for criminal justice personnel, training and equipment.
The conditions say the grant recipients must allow immigration agents access to prisons or jails , must give advance notice to federal officials when prisoners wanted on immigration detainers are to be released, and must certify that they’re complying with the federal statutes.
But McShane said Oregon and Portland “would, under any of these circumstances, risk public safety by eroding trust with immigrant communities or abandoning critical law enforcement initiatives funded by the Byrne JAG Program.”
He granted a permanent injunction and ordered the federal government to give the grants to Oregon for fiscal 2017 and 2018 that it withheld, with no conditions or penalties – a total of almost $5 million.
“The President of the United States and his Attorney General seek to advance their policy priorities by pressuring states and localities to comply with two immigration-related laws and by withholding federal funds from jurisdictions which refuse to assist immigration authorities,’”the judge noted.
McShane agreed with lawyers for the state and city, who argued the federal statutes are “unconstitutional intrusions upon their legislative independence” and that the funding conditions are contrary to the intent of Congress.
“Instances when the Attorney General may ‘withhold or re-allocate’ Byrne JAG funds were carefully delineated by Congress. When Congress wanted grantees to engage in or refrain from certain types of conduct — even information sharing — it provided for specific and measured penalties,” the judge wrote. “If Congress had shared the same concerns about grantees disclosing immigration-related information, it could have enacted analogous penalties. But it did not.’’
The state had expected to receive $2,034,945 from the grants for 2017 and $2,092,704 for 2018, while Portland expected to receive $385,515 for 2017 and $391,694 for 2018.
But the state didn’t receive notice of the grant awards for either year until last month because the U.S. Justice Department expressed concerns about the state’s sanctuary law. The state law bars local law enforcement from helping federal officials identify or detain anyone solely for violating immigration law.
Although the Justice Department made the money available to the state in July, the state can’t accept or draw from the money without risking penalties due to the sanctuary law, according to court records.
The city of Portland received its 2017 award last October but has yet to receive its 2018 award. It also would risk penalties if it accepted and used the money.
The Trump administration argued that the Justice Department’s pressure on states and municipalities to repeal their allegedly incompatible laws and policies “are essential to a properly functioning system of federal immigration laws,’’ according to court records.
Until 2017, the state had received the federal grants annually since the program’s creation in 2005, using more than $26 million to support programs for mental health treatment, technology improvement and drug treatment and enforcement. The state would like to use the 2017 and 2018 money to support specialty courts for drugs crimes or mental health cases or nonviolent felony offenders as well as to provide assistance to local crime victims.
Portland also had received the money every year until 2017, using it to buy bulletproof vests and special-threat plates for officers, acquire tactical medical kits, install GPS systems in its cars and add two victim advocates to the Police Bureau’s sex crimes unit. The city also has distributed some of the money to Multnomah County and Gresham to support a neighborhood prosecutor or an additional probation/parole officer.
McShane’s ruling mirrors similar ones by federal judges elsewhere in the country.
In December, for example, a federal judge in New York issued a permanent injunction barring immigration conditions on the grants for New York state, New Jersey, Connecticut, Virginia, Washington, Rhode Island, Massachusetts and New York City. Last October, a federal judge in California also ruled that the grant conditions were unconstitutional.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled a year ago that Trump’s order to withhold federal grant money based on state sanctuary laws violates separation of power principles that gave spending power to Congress. But the same appeals court ruled last month in favor of the Trump administration’s immigration conditions for other federal police grants.
Extremely dubious decision.
Jail for any judge who rules without law; or outside of lawful law.
Thanks, I was not aware of that!
I was under the impression the District judges were just part of each Circuit and the Circuit Court judges were the appeals judges.
We keep electing RINOs and expecting to get Super Patriots............Einstein said something about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get a different result..............
I think I can solve this problem once and for all. The Feds should put up a menu of all sanctuary cities taking illegal immigrants. When illegals are caught, providing they have no criminal records, they can choose the sanctuary city they want to live in.
The money that these cities get from the Fed for public safety will be diverted to helping illegals get to their chosen city. Once there, illegals have to stay in that city for no less than 10 years. During this time they receive no federal benefits.
If they commit a crime once settled in, they lose any chance of citizenship.Make the Dems own it.
Honorable Michael McShane
Judge McShane lives in Eugene, Oregon with his husband Gregory and their two children.
Oregon Ping
McShane ruled the statutes, identified as Sections 1373 and 1644 of the federal code, violate the 10th Amendment, which says any power not expressly given to the federal government [??? emphasis added] falls to the states or their people."
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
The states gave the feds the specific power to make citizenship policy when the Founding States drafted the Constitution’s Clause 4 of Section 8 of Article I.
"Article I, Section 8, Clause 4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization [emphasis added], and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;"
And since Clause 2 of the Constitution’s Article 6 clearly indicates that the federal government’s express constitutional powers trump 10th Amendment-protected state powers, the referenced activist federal judge is arguably not familiar with the “uniform Rule of Naturalization Clause.”
"Article VI, Clause 2: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land [emphasis added]; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
This federal judge seems to be ignoring constitutionally express federal powers to address citizenship issues to politically attack PDJT imo.
Corrections, insights welcome.
Remember in November 2020!
MAGA! Now KAG! (Keep America Great!)
The Executive Branch of our government is pretty much powerless.
On September 19, 2012, President Obama nominated McShane to serve as a United States District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, to the seat vacated by Judge Michael R. Hogan who took senior status on September 24, 2011.
On January 2, 2013, his nomination was returned to the President, due to the sine die adjournment of the Senate. On January 3, 2013, he was renominated to the same office. His nomination was reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 7, 2013, by voice vote.
The Senate confirmed his nomination on May 20, 2013, by voice vote.
Another black robed wanna be tyrant soon to be overturned. These Obama activists are 100% predictable.
“Judge” Sissyfag...
Oh brother, thanks for cluing us in.
Thanks for the heads up.
Bump!
“:^)
these grants are unconstitutional and outside the powers afforded the feds by the constitution But we jumped the shark along time ago and now they’re entitlements.
Thanks for that. This was in 2012.
Nominated to U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, September 19, 2012; no Senate vote
As for the appeasing Senate that let Obammy run rampant, funny how white Dems aren’t considered ‘raciss’ too.
>Refraining from giving away money is not robbery.
Cycling taxpayer $$ through big govt (graft/theft/fraud/skimming), esp. for that which has ZERO Constitutional authority *is* robbery.
States wish to blow their own Citizen’s taxes,let ‘em.
It’s not as if the Fed does it’s job (ala protecting the Citizens from the State) either. Sure as hell Pres. Trump has dropped the ball vs. arresting/prosecuting those govt employees (@ all levels) breaking the law (illegals, Rights violations+).
I think that any District Judge’s rulings get appealed to the Circuit in which that particular DJ resides, so this a$$hole’s ruling will likely be appealed there unless the Administration tries to take it directly to the SCOTUS for an expedited hearing. I guess the only roadblock to that avenue might be that useless pr!ck John Roberts (another one or GWB’s “gifts” to our country). It sure would help things for Ginsberg to “go” wouldn’t it. Breyer too!
My “dream SCOTUS” has the only Leftist “left” being the Fat Yenta (The Wise Latrina having to leave because of her T1 Diabetes, and Roberts being replaced by Trump because he was outed for some illegal deal with respect to his children’s adoption). And for insurance, Thomas stepping down so Trump can appoint a 40 year old replacement. We must not leave out shoring up the Right side of the court against some RAT President in the future being able to make replacements.
Nope. Sorry, but we are a Constitutional Republic and any state not willing to comply with the U. S. Constitution hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
If it’s inhabitants don’t like it, they can take it up the next election.
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.