Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order on Sanctuary Cities

Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Part of Trump’s Immigration Order on Sanctuary Cities

More political than legally-based?

A federal judge in California blocked a portion of President Trump’s January Immigration Executive Order Tuesday.

Jude William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California targeted the Trump administration’s promise to cut federal funding from “sanctuary cities” or cities who refused to cooperate with federal law enforcement concerning immigration matters.

From the New York Times:

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the administration, directing it to stop trying to cut off aid to sanctuary jurisdictions.

That said, the decision is pretty weak (NYT continued):

But the order does not prevent the federal government from moving forward on designating certain places as “sanctuaries,” nor does it keep the administration from enforcing conditions for doling out federal money if they already exist, as the Justice Department has already begun to do with some law enforcement grants.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which had asked the judge for an injunction, “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language,” the judge wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s January executive order on immigration.

CNN continued the discussion:

While the order seemed to threaten to jeopardize all federal funds for cities the administration deemed non-cooperative, it didn’t make clear what the threshold would be beyond that small law. Since the order was issued three months ago, the government has said that a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions would be forthcoming.

That uncertainty was a central focus of the arguments in the case, as well. At a hearing earlier this month, attorneys for the Justice Department offered a far narrower interpretation of the order than Trump, saying it would only apply to jurisdictions that refuse to share citizenship information as required by law, and that it would apply to only three federal grants from the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that require compliance as a pre-condition.

Orrick was skeptical of that interpretation.

“This interpretation renders the order toothless,” Orrick wrote. “The government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law.”

The judge instead looked at Trump’s own rhetoric and statements of his surrogates — saying those contradicted the “new, narrow interpretation” that government lawyers presented in court.

“If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments,” Orrick said. “The President has called it ‘a weapon’ to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his preferred policies of immigration enforcement, and his press secretary has reiterated that the President intends to ensure that ‘counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cites don’t get federal government funding in compliance with the executive order.'”

In March, AG Sessions announced the DOJ’s commitment to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, which allows the federal government to strip grant money from cities who willfully refuse compliance with federal communications guidelines as they pertain to local law enforcement and federal immigration officials:

“This guidance requires local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants,” said Sessions. “It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. The Department of Justice will also take all lawful steps to claw back any funds awarded to a jurisdiction that wilfully violates 1373.”

All of this smells far more politically motivated than anything derived from sound legal doctrine. As I blogged in March:

If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it. It’s likely none exists because, despite threats, no administration has carried out a threat to withhold federal monies from disobedient rogue local governments.

There’s speculation aplenty as to how the Supreme Court might interpret a legal challenge to anti-sanctuary city guidance. Printz v. United States (highly cited in relation to this particular part of immigration discussion) held, “Congress may not compel a state or local government to implement federal regulatory programs, even if they are temporary functions.” Enforcing federal law is the responsibility of the federal government, thus immigration enforcement cannot and should not be delegated to local law enforcement. However, as 1373 indicates, local law enforcement are expected and required to communicate certain information to federal authorities.

Trump’s administration doesn’t seem afraid of legal tests, given his first immigration executive order, but it’s clear that sanctuary cities are in the crosshairs.

Follow Kemberlee on Twitter @kemberleekaye

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

DJTs Andrew Jackson moment is approaching.

    heyjoojoo in reply to OldNuc. | April 25, 2017 at 7:41 pm

    Explain…

      tlcomm2 in reply to heyjoojoo. | April 25, 2017 at 8:17 pm

      “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” Famous Andrew Jackson quote regarding Supremes. Sorry for the downvote – was hitting reply and screwed up.

        Aboluntionist in reply to tlcomm2. | April 26, 2017 at 1:33 am

        Go back and study the history of the issue Andrew Jackson was dealing with. He never made that statement! He has been accused by numerous arm-chair historians of saying that, but there is no historical evidence that he actually said it, or even made a statement to that effect.

          No, he never made that statement, but he acted like he had in a series of actions against The Cherokee Nation.

          Zerobama defied the Supremes as well, His Executive Amnesty was declared illegal, and he carried it out, anyway.

    Rick in reply to OldNuc. | April 25, 2017 at 8:18 pm

    Yes, and the Trump administration should start desensitizing the public to such a moment.

Paul In Sweden | April 25, 2017 at 7:24 pm

All Political, just a talking point for the DNC and their MSM to rant about Trumps supposed unconstitutional EOs. I am more concerned about all the vacancies still on the Federal Bench.

    Gremlin1974 in reply to Paul In Sweden. | April 26, 2017 at 2:15 am

    I’m sure the decision has nothing to do with the fact that the “judge” was appointed by Obama after he has donated a quarter million dollars to Obama’s campaign.

Wait, these judges carry too much power. I mentioned this before when they managed to block both EO’s on the Travel ban. Now they block the Sanctuary City portion of the EO. But when Jan BRewner decides to enforce the law, suddenly she’s blocked by the federal government. Something is not right here. How the hell can the powers flip flop like this based on politics? The Executive branch is being overpowered by the a small segment of the judicial branch.

That is beyond scary. And yet we sit idle.

This is a serious crisis. We (i.e., the United States and its Constitutional government) cannot allow unelected twerps to dictate national policy.

    Milhouse in reply to tom swift. | April 25, 2017 at 11:08 pm

    The judge is not dictating national policy at all; he’s merely preventing the federal government from illegally compelling states and their subsidiaries to implement it.

      alaskabob in reply to Milhouse. | April 25, 2017 at 11:50 pm

      First of all…hit down thumb on iPad trying to hit reply..sorry. You are correct. The only path is for Feds to legally follow their duty and should the state interfer then act accordingly. Orders to interfere with enforcement of Federal law would be avenue to deal with these cities. Congress could pass laws that any city illegally hindering enforcement of Federal laws could lose funding. I would go further and there must be statutes dealing with hindering law enforcement … if violated put offending officials and police on the hot seat. I am certain that a friendly judge would rule against that but there is a point where doing that puts the judge in trouble.

        Milhouse in reply to alaskabob. | April 26, 2017 at 12:17 am

        The only flaw is that no city is illegally hindering law enforcement, nor has any city expressed any interest in doing so. I don’t know where people are getting the bizarre idea that there are places in the USA where local police are standing in ICE agents’ way, and preventing them from enforcing the immigration laws. That is simply not happening. Sanctuary cities merely exercise their right not to help.

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 10:29 am

          So the overarching justification for the action by the judge is, “Sanctuary cities merely exercise their right not to help”?

          So there is a constitutional element that stipulates that ‘sanctuary cities’ don’t have to comply with immigration laws? Because that’s the essence of that statement. And that is troubling.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 6:38 pm

          It’s a fundamental principle of our constitution that states and their subsidiaries don’t have to enforce federal laws if they don’t want to, and Congress may not compel them, not even by merely cutting funding.

          (As AZ recently learned, even if states do want to enforce federal law they can’t if the feds don’t want them to.)

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 6:41 pm

          PS: Sanctuary cities are complying with all immigration laws. They merely decline to enforce them, which is their constitutional right.

“…If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments…”

BS. No judge can second guess a President if his EOs are facially constitutional. This in essence is penalizing political speech which all members of the elected branches must by definition engage in.

Simply put, the judiciary is unconstitutionally preventing a duly elected President from exercising presidential powers.

If I were a member of Congress I’d introduce a bill to defund the lower courts. The Constitution only requires one federal court, the Supreme Court, and all others are creations of Congress.

    Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | April 26, 2017 at 12:11 am

    You’re the one slinging BS. The judge is not penalizing political speech, he’s using it to interpret what the speaker has done. The question before the judge was what the order means. The cities contend that it cuts off all funding; the administration lawyers content that it cuts off only funding that was already subject to such conditions anyway. The judge said 1) it’s unlikely to mean that because if it did it would be superfluous, and 2) since the president and AG have publicly said it means what the cities claim it means, I’m taking them at their word.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:24 am

      You are wildly, incredibly wrong AND misrepresenting the facts at issue. The feds are not ordering the states to do anything. They are simply requiring them to provide the feds with information.

      http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-rivkin-foley-sanctuary-city-20161207-story.html

      “…This “anti-commandeering” doctrine, however, doesn’t protect sanctuary cities or public universities — because it doesn’t apply when Congress merely requests information. For example, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the Court unanimously rejected an anti-commandeering challenge to the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act, which required states under certain circumstances to disclose some personal details about license holders. The court concluded that, because the DPPA requested information and “did not require state officials to assist in the enforcement of federal statutes,” it was consistent with the New York and Printz cases.

      It follows that, consistent with the anti-commandeering doctrine, Congress can require state, local or university police to tell federal agents when they arrest an immigrant present in the country illegally.

      It’s true that cities such as Los Angeles instruct city employees not to ask about immigration status, but they may still have access to that information. Under California law, for example, driver’s licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally contain prominent distinguishing language stating, “federal limits apply.” Indeed, Congress could specify that licenses issued to immigrants in the country illegally must include a distinguishing feature, or they won’t be accepted for federal purposes, such as TSA airport security. Congress already has enacted the Real ID Act, which mandates that driver’s licenses display certain details…”

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | April 26, 2017 at 7:09 pm

        The feds are not ordering the states to do anything. They are simply requiring them to provide the feds with information.

        Providing information is doing something.

        I’ll bet you didn’t read Reno v. Condon, and trusted Rivkin and Foley to tell you the truth about it; big mistake. Their claim that this decision carves out some sort of exception to the anti-commandeering doctrine when Congress merely requests information is an outright shameless lie. Read it for yourself and you will see that it says no such thing.

        The law at issue in that case regulated everyone who sells driver information; if a state chooses to engage in that business then of course it must comply with the same law as anyone else. South Carolina claimed that since complying with the law would impose a burden on its employees, who would have to familiarize themselves with it and make sure it was being followed, this was “commandeering” its resources. The court rejected this claim as ridiculous; if it were valid then states would be exempt from obeying all laws, since every law imposes such a burden.

      Arminius in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:29 am

      “…and 2) since the president and AG have publicly said it means what the cities claim it means, I’m taking them at their word.”

      This is the definition of punishing political speech. When courts look to public statements, instead of looking only to the text of an EO, they are overreaching.

        Mark30339 in reply to Arminius. | April 26, 2017 at 10:19 am

        Very helpful comment. If sanctuary cities are refusing to comply with bona fide information requests, the federal law does pose consequences. When doing a faithful review, the court should confine itself to the text of the executive order. Extemporaneous remarks on administration policy are being sanctioned here, and the effect is to chill the speech of administration officials.

        Milhouse in reply to Arminius. | April 26, 2017 at 7:20 pm

        This is the definition of punishing political speech.

        Now you’re just lying. The judge is not punishing anything. He is taking the president’s own word about what it was that he was ordering. The text of the order is certainly consistent with the president’s words, but his lawyers came into court arguing that he didn’t mean it that way, and the order should be interpreted so narrowly as to be meaningless. It was certainly within the court’s competence to take notice that their client himself very publicly contradicted their claim.

        But if you think the lawyers were correct and the order really only meant what they claimed it did, then why are you complaining about the injunction? If the president only meant to cut those three grants then he’s still free to do so. The very fact that he’s upset about it and threatened to appeal it proves that the judge correctly understood his intention, and the position his lawyers took in court was a lie.

      gwsjr425 in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:09 pm

      Mental convulsions and verbal diarrhea like this is how the Penubra Clause was found in the Constitution.

We live in a judicial dictatorship, as Ben Stein observed. As another example, a federal judge recently ordered this to a civil litigant before illegally confiscating all of his property and terminating his civil rights, stating:

“You are a fool, a fool, a fool, a fool to screw with a federal judge, and if you don’t understand that, I can make you understand it … I have the full force of the Navy, Army, Marines and Navy behind me,”

http://dailycaller.com/2016/08/12/california-attorney-dallas-judges-shred-constitution-steal-millions/

Obviously, the response to this should hit at the wallet.

Since the routine of civil forfeiture is “Local police seize cash, turn it over to Feds, get it back in grants” I would propose a slight change in the process.

Take out that third step. That’s something a President should be able to do without having a judge stomp on his toes.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to georgfelis. | April 26, 2017 at 11:34 am

    How about reallocating federal dollars currently going to sanctuary cities to hiring additional ICE agents to enforce Federal law in those cities?

I really like the part of the decisions where Judge Horrick, joining Posner as a moron, says the cities will suffer irreparable harm if the funds are withheld. DUH! The whole point of withholding funds for breaking the law is to cause irreparable harm to force compliance with the law. If the law can be broken with impunity, there is no law. And when judges say there is no law- why should anyone obey any law they disagree with?

    Milhouse in reply to gospace. | April 26, 2017 at 12:02 am

    The cities are not breaking any law. On the contrary, they are standing on their constitutional right not to enforce federal law, and it’s the president who’s trying to illegally compel them by cutting off their funding. If the cut is allowed to go ahead while the case is being argued, then the cities, when they win, will have suffered irreparable harm; hence the injunction. Should the president win the case, he will not have suffered irreparable harm by having delayed the cut until his right to make it has been established.

      Gremlin1974 in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:18 am

      Now show me where they have any “right” to that funding. States can not force the feds to give them money.

        Milhouse in reply to Gremlin1974. | April 26, 2017 at 7:27 pm

        Yes, they can. This is not even controversial, it is settled law. What’s more, you were completely in favor of that principle when the court used it to strike down 0bama’s attempt to force the states to expand Medicare.

      gwsjr425 in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:12 pm

      Nonsense, Fed funds are accepted on the condition that cities/states cooperate with the federal gov’t, that’s what the funds are for. If said city decides NOT to cooperate, they forfeit their funds.

        Milhouse in reply to gwsjr425. | April 26, 2017 at 7:36 pm

        You are wrong. Federal funds are conditional only when Congress explicitly attaches such a condition to a specific program when it first enacts it, and the condition is rationally related to the purpose of that specific program, and the state can afford to forgo the funding and refuse to cooperate. Trump remains free to cut the three grants for which these criteria are true. The injunction prevents him from cutting funding to which Congress never attached any condition, or which is not related in any way to immigration enforcement, or which is so large that cutting it would compel the cities to cooperate.

      iconotastic in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:33 pm

      If the targeted federal grants are reasonably related to the issue of providing federal assistance (this is for holding prisoners until federal pickup, not information requests) then wouldn’t denying new grants (not existing grants) be Constitutional? So, for example, road and HUD funds would remain but DOJ funds to local LE would be at risk, right?

“If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it.”

So, am I understanding this correctly? In 2010, when it was the federal govt arguing the state of Arizona had NO power to enforce federal immigration law – on the rather shocking admitted grounds that the feds didn’t WANT it enforced – then the states shouldn’t be allowed to enforce it, period. In other words, states have no say in the matter.

But now, we have states and municipalites arguing their freedom to IGNORE federal immigration law, and there is absolutely NOTHING the federal govt, in this case interested in enforcing immigration law, can do about it?? Each city and state can basically establish its own immigration law?

Anyone else get the feeling this shiite is just being made up as we go along, in order to reach the preferred policy outcome?

    Milhouse in reply to shawnmer. | April 25, 2017 at 11:31 pm

    The only one making shiite up as we go along is you. The law is clear and obvious, and it takes a moron to see an inconsistency, or a deliberate liar to pretend to see one. Immigration law is a matter entirely for the federal government. States have no role in enforcing it, unless the federal government asks them and they agree. When Arizona wanted to enforce it against the federal government’s wishes, the court slapped it down. Now the federal government is willing to let states enforce it, so AZ can now do so, if it still wants to. But now Trump is attempting to compel states to enforce it, and it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that he can’t do that.

    States and municipalities are not ARGUING their freedom not to enforce federal law; there is nothing to argue about, it’s settled law. Trump is trying to ignore that law. No state or city is claiming the right to make its own immigration law, or disputing the federal government’s right to enforce its own law, they’re merely exercising their own undisputed right not to help.

      Tom Servo in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 11:29 am

      Hypothetical question – suppose a State refused to enforce or participate in Federal orders to eliminate school segregation, contrary to existing State Law. Would the POTUS have the authority, based on only an executive order, to intervene and force that State to recognize Federal authority and obey Federal mandates?

        Milhouse in reply to Tom Servo. | April 26, 2017 at 7:51 pm

        Your question makes no sense. No state has ever been required to enforce federal civil rights laws; the feds enforce them themselves. States are, of course, required to comply with those laws, just like anyone else, and if they don’t the feds will make them.

        You don’t seem to understand that sanctuary cities are in full compliance with the immigration laws. As federal law requires, when hiring anyone they ask for documents showing the person’s right to work in the USA, just like any employer. They do not assist anyone in illegally crossing the border. But they decline to lift a finger to enforce these laws, or to help the feds enforce them; no law requires them to do so, and no law can so require them, because the constitution forbids it.

      gwsjr425 in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 2:13 pm

      Nonsense, Fed funds are accepted on the condition that cities/states cooperate with the federal gov’t, that’s what the funds are for. If said city decides NOT to cooperate, they forfeit their funds.

        Milhouse in reply to gwsjr425. | April 26, 2017 at 7:55 pm

        That is not true. Federal funds are conditional only when Congress explicitly attaches such a condition to a specific program when it first enacts it, and the condition is rationally related to the purpose of that specific program, and the state can afford to forgo the funding and refuse to cooperate.

        Trump remains free to cut the three grants for which these criteria are true. The injunction prevents him from cutting funding to which Congress never attached any condition, or which is not related in any way to immigration enforcement, or which is so large that cutting it would compel the cities to cooperate. Since his lawyers claimed he had no intention of cutting such funding, he should have had no problem with this. The fact that he does object proves that the judge was right about his intentions.

Simple solution. Stop fighting over money and start arresting state and local officials who deliberately block federal law enforcement.

The feds constantly threaten average people with obstruction of justice charges. Politicians who order police or other government employees to break the law are even more guilty.

To make this more palatable, limit it to cases where the illegal immigrant hurts or kills someone. There will be no shortage of potential arrests.

    Milhouse in reply to JOHN B. | April 25, 2017 at 11:54 pm

    No state or local official is blocking federal law enforcement. The federal government is free to enforce its laws all it likes; state and local officials are merely exercising their constitutional right not to assist in that enforcement. If you arrest them for that you’re a criminal and will yourself be arrested.

    As you say, politicians who order police and other employees to break the law, particularly the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, are guilty and deserve to be arrested; that would be Trump, if he were to do what you propose.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | April 27, 2017 at 8:48 am

      Officials from places like California have been for months exclaiming that they will not cooperate with federal officials in regards to illegal immigration. That statement there indicates they are willing to ignore the law. Feds need to look at where they are choosing to ignore the law and make the appropriate arrests.

If there is a legal mechanism to penalize sanctuary cities, we haven’t found it.

Emigration reform that deprives sanctuaries cities of democratic leverage, redistributive change (e.g. welfare profits), and labor arbitrage. That denies second and third-world nations the privacy to carry out immigration reform and abstain from responsibility. That denies civil and human rights corporation of money and status to fund their anti-native activities in privacy.

facebookisfacist | April 25, 2017 at 9:39 pm

It seems as if this judge is a proponent of sex trafficking of minor Hispanics from Central America. Protect your daughters.

I kinda think we’re done.

it’s clear that the left wants to fight their battles using the court system. And why not? it’s been effective so far and they seem to keep winning.

Why can a federal judge stop the president from issuing an EO? Whatever happened to the idea that the federal judge had to persuade a higher court to get a temporary stop? This basically means that if all of the liberal judges obama appointed follow suit then Trump will never be able to issue an EO. I don’t believe this how the system is supposed to work.

    Milhouse in reply to inspectorudy. | April 25, 2017 at 11:15 pm

    Whatever happened to the idea that the federal judge had to persuade a higher court to get a temporary stop?

    What idea? What are you talking about? No such idea has ever existed; you just made it up on the spot.

    Executive orders are not magic. They have no force of law. They are merely the president’s instructions to his employees. And he has no right to issue illegal instructions; if he does they are not binding, and his employees have no right to obey them. And it is precisely a judge’s role to find that an instruction is illegal, or to enjoin it pending a decision on whether it’s illegal. In this case the order’s illegality, assuming it means anything at all, is so obvious that the administration lawyers conceded it coming in, so the injunction practically wrote itself.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | April 25, 2017 at 11:20 pm

      What portion of this latest EO is illegal?

        Milhouse in reply to heyjoojoo. | April 25, 2017 at 11:44 pm

        That depends on what the order actually means, which is what this case is all about. For months the president has been threatening to cut off all federal funding from states and cities that exercise their constitutional right not to enforce federal laws. That would be blatantly illegal, so when he issued an order that seems to do that the cities challenged it. Now the administration comes into court and says oh no, this order doesn’t do that at all, it merely affects three grants that were already conditioned on voluntary compliance, and enforces 8 USC §1373 to the extent already allowed by law. So the judge said fine, I’ll take you at your word; to do only those things you don’t need this order, so if that’s all you intend to do you won’t object if I enjoin it. If you do object, that will prove that you just lied to me.

          heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 12:21 am

          then what would Trump AND his legal counsel have been thinking would result? Did any of the counsel not foresee that cities would object?

          I can’t imagine that they did not see this. at least I hate to think that.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | April 26, 2017 at 12:58 am

          The problem is that they’re not saying. Perhaps they really did intend only to make these limited cuts, in which case the executive order was just political theater; in that case they should have no objection to the injunction. Or perhaps they originally intended to make more drastic cuts, and only changed their minds because of the lawsuit. Or perhaps they were trying to have it both ways; tell the judge that the cuts would be limited and then turn around and cut them drastically and hope to get away with it.

Milhouse……I gotta ask: with so much legal experience, why are you such a serial commenter here? I mean, with your understanding of law why aren’t you a federal judge or such?

    iconotastic in reply to scooterjay. | April 26, 2017 at 2:35 pm

    Imaging Milhouse grilling attorneys just made my day 🙂

    iconotastic in reply to scooterjay. | April 26, 2017 at 2:36 pm

    Rags too, on most topics 🙂

      Ragspierre in reply to iconotastic. | April 26, 2017 at 2:55 pm

      I became a lawyer in large part to further Conservative ideas and ideals. This is…as you may note…a legal blog. Sometimes the law isn’t what some of you morons want it to be. It is what it is.

      You’ll also note…if you’re at all honest…that I DO NOT comment on many threads, since I don’t give a good shit.

        iconotastic in reply to Ragspierre. | April 26, 2017 at 4:38 pm

        pls just accept the compliment.

        And I think of myself as a proud AoS moron, so thanks for the compliment in return.

buckeyeminuteman | April 26, 2017 at 6:35 am

It was true during the last 8 years and it is true now. No federal monies should be going to state and local governments. That’s why each level has its own income tax (Federal is way too high). If the Feds couldn’t dangle money in front of local governments, we’d all be better off and able to help locally elected officials make the right decisions.

However, if Obama could say no federal funds if you don’t use Common Core, then Trump can certainly say no federal funds if you don’t help us catch lawbreakers.

Close The Fed | April 26, 2017 at 9:39 am

Look, let’s be honest.
This is an invasion.
It’s the federal government’s responsibility to protect the states from invasion.

We need a paradigm shift. Protection from invasion would invoke a whole new set of rules, that as far as I know, have no precedent.

Start arresting them without “probable cause.” They’re part of an invasion. And if anyone thinks 20 million foreigners here isn’t an invasion, they need to boxed out of the game.

Ignore the courts; they have no jurisdiction over the feds’ actions to remove invaders.

    iconotastic in reply to Close The Fed. | April 26, 2017 at 2:40 pm

    The federal government has many, many levers to pull regarding dealing with illegal aliens. This is just one of them. I would rather let this one stand than let the camel of commandeering’s nose under the tent of federalism.

    Two examples of existing levers: RealID and TSA rejection of non-RealID identification and eVerify requirements of all employers, including governments.

    It took years of sabotage to get to where we are now. It will take years of constant pressure to fix the issue without damaging federalism. One thing the Left is good at–never stopping, never giving up, always fighting. Learning something like this from the enemy is a good thing.

What I find interesting here is the Courts abandonment of well established Federal pleading standards. A Plaintiff only has standing to litigate a claim if the Plaintiff faces actual harm.

At the present time, the Attorney General has only asked for an explanation from certain jurisdictions as to why their immigration practices do not violate Federal Law. It would seem the Plaintiff does not have standing until the explanation is rejected by the Attorney General and the threat of harm (e.g. the loss of funds) is imminent.

notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital | April 26, 2017 at 1:35 pm

Lewfarge had a great comment about this on a later thread. It needs to be shared! Thanks Lewfarge!

Lewfarge | April 26, 2017 at 8:10 am
In case my brief list wasn’t enough to make my point, look at the LONG TERM damage he did to the nation by the total corruption of the legal system, from the justice dept. and other federal agencies, all the way down to MANY local law enforcement agencies.
As an example, this fine judge
http://www.weaselzippers.us/335973-judge-behind-blocking-trump-sanctuary-city-order-was-200000-obama-bundler/

The problem with this TRO is that it prohibits a future action which may, in fact, be totally legal. The Trump administration has not cut off any funding to any local jurisdiction due to their actions in claiming to be a “sanctuary”. So, no harm, no foul. The parties involved have no standing to claim damages, as none exist.

The Trump administration has not asked local jurisdictions to enforce any immigration laws. All it has done is to warn the local jurisdictions who are stating that they will hinder, or obstruct, the federal government in its enforcement of existing law, that such hindrance or obstruction will cause them to lose their current federal funding. And, even Orrick stated that his TRO would not affect the conditions currently applied to the granting of federal funding to other jurisdictions. The judge is making an ASSUMPTION which is not based upon any concrete facts. And we all know what happens we we ASSUME.

Some of these people simply do not get it. Not actively searching out illegal immigrants is not a violation of federal law. Sneaking an illegal immigrant out of your courtroom to keep ICE agents from taking that person into custody is a crime, either obstructing a federal agent in the performance of his duty or aiding and abetting a violator. A LEO who does not notify the feds when he encounters a suspected, but not proven, illegal immigrant may be acting lawfully. But, it does nothing to strengthen the bond between federal and local law enforcement. After all, the feds are under no obligation to notify local jurisdictions of the presence of suspected terrorists, gang members, drug dealers or other suspected criminal violators within their jurisdictions.

This is a very slippery slope for these people to be embarking on. It can not end well for them.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2017/04/25/undocumented-immigrant-population-united-states/100877164/

Huh. That isn’t what a lot of demagogues would have you believe.

It certainly is too high, and must be addressed. But it isn’t like there is a “new” crisis. You all remember how a “crisis” is used by assholes to flog the masses, right?

Where does a pisant district judge get the authority to nullify the POTUS?

Trump should declare the district court judge’s ruling and that of the circuit court of appeals invalid, as they have no standing. Only the Supreme Court can overrule the POTUS, and even that has been successfully disputed by both Jackson and Zerobama.

    Milhouse in reply to Mannie. | April 26, 2017 at 8:10 pm

    That is bullsh*t. The president is not above the law, and he is not special. Every judge has always had this authority, ever since we’ve had courts and governments, i.e. at least 600 years.

      heyjoojoo in reply to Milhouse. | April 27, 2017 at 12:52 pm

      Not true. If that were true, Jan Brewer would not have been blocked by this “special” president named Obama who prevented her from using ‘the law’ to deal with illegal immigration in her state. So, it’s clear that these activist judges get to play with authority when they wish to push their agendas.

What happened to the idea that judges have jurisdictions? How can this judge’s ruling be valid outside the district in which he sits?

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend