Free Republic

A federal appeals court ruled Monday that the Trump administration cannot withhold federal grants from California sanctuary cities, affirming previous rulings in the state. The U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco said its ruling that the Justice Department cannot block police funds from cities not enforcing immigration laws does not extend nationally, Bloomberg News reported. The decision follows rulings from three other regional federal appeals courts against the administration. But a New York court unanimously ruled in February that the department had the authority to withhold funds from the cities that do not comply with federal authorities' enforcement of...

The Trump administration doesn't have the authority to divert Pentagon funds to construct additional barriers on the US-Mexico border, a federal appeals court ruled Friday, days after President Donald Trump's visit to a section of the wall in Arizona. In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals said that the transfer of $2.5 billion circumvented Congress, which holds the authority to appropriate money.

A federal appeals court decided 2-1 Friday that the Trump administration violated the law when it used military funds to build a wall on the Mexican border. The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the power of the purse belongs to Congress, and the administration lacked constitutional authority to transfer the military money. Two Democratic appointees were in the majority. A Trump appointee dissented.

The Supreme Court ruled Thursday for the Trump administration in a key immigration case, determining that a federal law limiting an asylum applicant’s ability to appeal a determination that he lacked a credible fear of persecution from his home country does not violate the Constitution. The ruling means the administration can deport some people seeking asylum without allowing them to make their case to a federal judge. The 7-2 ruling applies to those who fail their initial asylum screenings, making them eligible for quick deportation. In a decision in the case of Dept. of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, the court...

They said it. I didn't. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled that Democratic California Gavin Newsom's ban on in-person church services during the coronavirus pandemic can stand.The lawsuit, filed by South Bay United Pentecostal Church in San Diego, prevents that church from reopening, according to the Los Angeles TimesThe "constitutional standards that would normally govern our review of a Free Exercise claim should not be applied," wrote the two judges in the majority opinion."We're dealing here with a highly contagious and often fatal disease for which there presently is no known cure. In the words of...

The Supreme Court unanimously resurrected a federal law struck down by an appeals court that made it a felony to encourage people to come to or stay illegally in the United States.

he U.S. Supreme Court has ordered officials in San Jose, California, to explain why they confiscated the legally owned guns of Lori Rodriguez. They still have them. The case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation on behalf of the woman. The Supreme Court justices have instructed city officials to respond by May 20. "We’re encouraged by this development in the case," said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. "If the city thought they could just ignore this case and make it go away, they’re wrong." "Her firearms were seized seven years ago after her husband was...

An appeals court has reinstated a California law requiring background checks for people buying ammunition, reversing a federal judge’s decision to stop the checks that he said violate the constitutional right to bear arms. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday granted the state attorney general’s request to stay the judge’s order. “This means that the same restrictions that have been previously in effect regarding ammunition in California are back for the time being,” the National Rifle Association, which hailed the judge’s injunction, said in a news release. The law, which took effect last July, requires Californians to pass...

The Supreme Court has handed President Trump a victory, albeit a temporary one, by allowing the administration to enforce the “remain in Mexico” policy.Via The Hill:The justices will allow the “Remain in Mexico” policy to continue while the administration appeals a lower court ruling which deemed the program illegal and ordered a suspension that was scheduled to take effect tomorrow.Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the only justice to publicly dissent from the decision to allow the policy to continue.Known officially as Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), the policy aims to curb entry into the U.S. by asylum-seekers, many of whom are Central...

The Supreme Court issued an Order this morning, at the URL above, staying enforcement of a trial court order that had barred the Trump Administration from enforcing its policy requiring those applying for asylum having come from Mexico to remain in Mexico until the application is ruled on. The policy is being challenged in court,and the Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to review the trial court order barring enforcement. The Supreme Court says today that Trump can continue to enforce the policy while the legal challenge continues. One is tempted to read the tea leaves and see this...

The Justice Department petitioned the Supreme Court on Friday to preserve the key program that solved last year’s border surge, after a lower court ruled it was illegal. Known formally as the Migrant Protection Protocols (MPP), and more commonly called “Remain in Mexico,” the policy allows the U.S. to push migrants who entered from Mexico back across the border to wait for their immigration court dates. About 60,000 migrants had been subjected to MPP. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling last week that MPP was illegal, but stayed the order. On Wednesday, the court gave the...

The Constitution grants Congress plenary authority over immigration policy, but liberal judges have increasingly usurped the law. On Monday the Supreme Court will consider if immigrants whom Congress has deemed deportable can seek sanctuary in the courts. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) establishes rules and procedures by which immigrants may be removed from the country. To prevent federal courts from getting clogged, Congress created special immigration courts with multiple levels of administrative appeal and limited federal judicial review of cases. In Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam, a Sri Lankan man caught after crossing the Mexican border illegally is...

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday affirmed that YouTube, a Google subsidiary, is a private platform and thus not subject to the First Amendment. In making that determination, the Court also rejected a plea from a conservative content maker that sued YouTube in hopes that the courts would force it to behave like a public utility. Put another way, had the Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of Prager University—also known as PragerU—and against YouTube, it would have violated YouTube's First Amendment rights. Headed by conservative radio host Dennis Prager, PragerU alleged in its suit against YouTube that the...

A 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel voted unanimously Friday to suspend an order it issued earlier in the day to block a central pillar of the Trump administration’s policy requiring asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their cases wind through U.S. courts.

A federal appeals court has blocked the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy that requires asylum seekers who attempt to cross the U.S.-Mexico border to wait in Mexico while their cases are processed in the U.S. The unanimous ruling from a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stated the policy conflicted with U.S. immigration law. The court blocked the Remain in Mexico policy, originally known as the Migrant Protection Protocols, across the entire U.S.-Mexico border. Around 59,000 people are currently a part of the program, Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Mark Morgan said on Thursday. Top...

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that internet giants like Google and Facebook can censor content on their platforms, rebuking arguments from conservatives who claim the tech companies violate users' First Amendment rights by removing certain messages or videos. With its unanimous opinion, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals became the latest court to dismiss arguments that platforms like YouTube can be sued under the First Amendment for decisions on content moderation. "Despite YouTube’s ubiquity and its role as a public-facing platform, it remains a private forum, not a public forum subject to judicial scrutiny under the First...

  Thread A couple of days ago I wrote that the Democrats are implementing the Algerian Strategy in the United States. @realDonaldTrump knows this, of course. @SpeakerPelosi tore up the State of the Union address to signal that she's on board with the Algerian Strategy. mentions A refresher: During the Algerian Civil War of 1991-2002, the Algerian government helped the Armed Islamic Group or GIA (Groupe Islamique Armé), the most violent terrorists in human history.   mentions The GIA's motto was "No agreement, no truce, no dialogue." All they did was mass murder civilians in night raids. They cut the throats of entire villages...

Statement from the Press Secretary STATEMENTS & RELEASES  IMMIGRATION  Issued on: February 6, 2020 Today, a single, unelected, district judge in the Central District of California issued a legally groundless and sweeping injunction that—if not immediately lifted—will guarantee the release of innumerable criminal illegal aliens into our communities putting citizens at dire risk. This ruling undermines the pillars of immigration enforcement and blocks traditional and vital law enforcement cooperation that has occurred for decades. This injunction puts the health and lives of innocent Americans in direct jeopardy. Our neighborhoods are less safe today as a result of this dangerous district court ruling.     The Free...

A federal court has ruled Arizona Republicans’ ban on mail-in ballots is illegal and unconstitutional, calling it intentionally discriminatory toward people of color, who already face increased barriers to voting. The ruling is a major victory for the Democratic party, which filed the suit, and will likely make it easier for minorities to get their ballots counted in the largely red state.

A review of lawsuits on livestock grazing  Hammond grazing permits On December 20 of 2019, federal judge Michael H. Simon revoked the grazing permit for Hammond Ranches Inc., finding that former Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s order renewing it earlier this year was an “abuse of discretion.'' Background: The Hammonds had 4 different grazing permits on BLM lands. In June of 2012 Steve and Dwight Hammond were convicted of intentionally setting fires on BLM land. On Oct. 30, 2012 federal judge Michael. H. Hogan sentenced Steve Hammond to 12 months and one day of imprisonment and 3 years of supervised...