Posted on 07/27/2018 7:03:05 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
A judge on Friday declared a law the Trump administration has relied heavily on in many of its lawsuits against so-called sanctuary cities as unconstitutional.
In a 58-page opinion, Judge Harry Leinenweber rebuked Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Trump administration’s efforts taken to penalize sanctuary cities, CNN reported.
Leinenweber moved to strike down the underlying law, known as Section 1373, which mandates that local governments share the immigration status of individuals with the federal government.
The ruling from Leinenweber, an appointee of former President Reagan, currently only applies to Chicago, though the judge reportedly said he intends for the ruling to be applied across the country.
Leinenweber previously issued a ruling temporarily blocking immigration-related conditions that the administration had imposed on federal law enforcement grants in an effort to penalize sanctuary cities, a ruling an appellate court upheld.
The judge has now made his initial ruling on the grant conditions permanent and is taking aim at the underlying law the administration has depended on in its sanctuary city lawsuits, CNN reported.
Leinenweber cited a recent Supreme Court ruling legalizing state gambling laws in his opinion Friday as justification for declaring as unconstitutional the underlying law used in the sanctuary city legal battles.
The Supreme Court ruling in question found that the federal government could not prohibit states from passing laws they choose, which Leinenweber also noted in his opinion arrived between the time he had considered the case preliminarily and now.
#8. Tell this to the stupid judge. Federal law preempts state law and immigration issues are NOT gambling issues.
Time this judge retired to the old age home for used up judges.
Let the states pass their laws. That doesn’t not supercede federal law. A state can pass a law making it legal to discriminate selling houses to minorities. And the feds can enforce their laws making the state law in this case moot.
Or more on point, states can make drinking age 18 years old, but they lose highway finding if they do. This judge would rule the feds can’t withhold the money.
Such utter crap. This should be immediately taken to SCOTUS and overturned. Idiot Judge needs to be retired.
+1
I would like to suggest that the best way to fight sanctuary cities, (and states) is to just enforce immigration laws that are on the books.
That is all you have to do.
A judge cannot order the cessation of the enforcement of a law on the books with any credibility. If he tries, just ignore the bastard.
You are correct - Congress needs to specify that cooperation with immigration officials is required for exchange for the money. Mandating a local government unit will do certain things w/o that provision is flawed. States are not sub units of the federal government, except when the judiciary has found it necessary to advance and impose the left’s agenda and programs (e.g. environmental, abortion, homo-marriage, Obamacare, etc). I would welcome a return to the federal government being one of limited, enumerated powers, with any change of said powers be done through the amendment process. Unfortunately that won’t happen. That ship has sailed, and in large part to what began during FDR tenure.
There is no Wickard v Filburn type of decision out there with regards to immigration. The real solution is for the do-nothing GOP to pass a law explicitly denying Sanctuary cities funding of all kinds. But of course they won’t; many still believe that Trump is wrong on illegal immigration and the broken legal immigration system.
I wonder what SCOTUS might have to say about the Constitutionality of the law - this “judge” needs to be reminded that he ain’t SCOTUS material...
I hope this will be appealed to SCOTUS and they will set things straight.
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.