Posted on 02/27/2020 6:26:03 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In 2017, as part of efforts to crack down on uncontrolled illegal immigration, Trump’s Justice Department announced that it would withhold federal monies from so-called sanctuary cities and states that prevented Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents from having access to illegal aliens within those “sanctuary” jurisdictions. Within the ambit of the Second Circuit appellate court, New York City, Connecticut, New York State, Washington, New Jersey, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island raced to a Manhattan federal court claiming that it was unconstitutional. Although an activist lower court agreed, the Second Circuit has now reversed that ruling.
When seven states and NYC sued, they had every reason to believe they’d be successful. For example, in 2017, a San Francisco-based federal district court had already blocked Trump’s attempt to withhold funds from "sanctuary California" using one of the now-infamous nation-wide injunctions that had become the “resistance” judges’ stock in trade.
The winning argument in California was that Trump’s order was unconstitutional because it was trying to force state and local officials to enforce federal laws. (Of course, the opposite was true – sanctuaries jurisdictions block federal officials from enforcing federal laws.) San Francisco also claimed that working with the feds would break its bond with illegal aliens, damaging public safety. These are the kinds of arguments that work before leftist judges.
Other activist federal courts followed the same track. In 2018, the Seventh Circuit upheld a nationwide injunction that a district court in Chicago imposed against Trump’s move to block funding.
Underlying all of sanctuary jurisdiction cases was the contention that he who pays the piper does not get to call the tune: Even thought sanctuary jurisdictions actively interfere with federal law enforcement and public safety, the federal government (and the American taxpayer) nevertheless need to keep the spigot open.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.
And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.
[snip]
“While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue,” the 2nd Circuit three-judge panel said in a decision written by Judge Reena Raggi.
“These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight,” the appeals court said.
Now FORCE them to PAY back the finds they have received since 2017 when this started.
Why can’t states proclaim themselves pro-life sanctuaries and forbid abortions, if Federal immigration laws are subject to state nullification. If one Federal law is, then they all are.
Now off to the SCOTUS!
A question for the legal beagles here: is it possible for the 2nd circuit Court of Appeals to make their order a nationwide ruling since their ruling now counters the other circuits, which have all ruled on their cases? In other words, could they rescind the other circuit’s injunctions based on their own findings.
This is a major win... Thank God for President Trump...
That’ll do for a starter, but the officials who implement these rogue laws must be prosecuted and brought to justice.
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.