9th Circuit hands win to Trump: DOJ can withhold grants from Sanctuary Cities
“This ruling reverses a lawless decision that enabled Sanctuary City policies, putting the safety and security of all Americans in harm’s way”
The Trump administration’s decision to crack down on sanctuary policies by withholding funding resulted in Los Angeles being denied a $3 million grant, a move that prompted the city to sue the DOJ.
On Friday, the Trump administration scored a huge win when the 9th Circuit overturned a nationwide injunction barring the DOJ from prioritizing taxpayer monies to cities and states that cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The three-judge panel, in a 2-1 vote, found that the Trump administration has the right to deny sanctuary cities and states Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants.
The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s efforts to prioritize federal dollars for local policing to towns and cities that complied with certain immigration policies.
The ruling, a split 2-1 decision, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) was within its rights to withhold Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from sanctuary cities and states over their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities and instead prioritize agencies that focused on unauthorized immigration and agreed to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to jail records and immigrants in custody.
The city of Los Angeles first sued the administration after it was denied a $3 million grant on the grounds that it did not receive the money because it did not focus on immigration for its community policing grant application. The decision reversed a district court’s ruling.
“The panel rejected Los Angeles’s argument that DOJ’s practice of giving additional consideration to applicants that choose to further the two specified federal goals violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause,” wrote Judge Sandra Ikuta, joined by Judge Jay Bybee.
“The panel held that DOJ did not exceed its statutory authority in awarding bonus points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area or that agreed to the Certification,” she wrote.
You can read the ruling here.
According to the LA Times, LA City Attorney Mike “Feuer said the city would explore all options, including an appeal to a larger panel of the 9th Circuit.”
“If this decision were to stand, this or another administration could add other conditions, favoring jurisdictions that criminalize abortions or allow teachers to have guns in classrooms,” Feuer said.
Needless to say, the DOJ and the White House are pleased with the 9th Circuit panel’s decision.
“The Department is pleased that the Court recognized the lawful authority of the Administration to provide favorable treatment when awarding discretionary law-enforcement grants to jurisdictions that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws,” the Justice Department said in an emailed statement.
“This ruling reverses a lawless decision that enabled Sanctuary City policies, putting the safety and security of all Americans in harm’s way,” the White House said later Friday in an emailed statement. “We urge citizens across America to demand that Democrat leaders cease their support for Sanctuary policies that deprive Americans of life, limb, and liberty.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Feuer says “…allow teachers to have guns in classrooms.” like that is a bad thing. 😉
Notice we have never seen any crazed Democrat mass shooters in armed classrooms and campuses…….
I guess you haven’t been reading the “particulars”, of the background of the insane school shootings? Mostly, they are “insane”, misfits, nut cases, & most are “Liberal”!…{ if not “All”}….Radicals by any other name are “Misfits”, in this society!
If you read a bit more carefully I think he’s agreeing with you.
Given that teachers are supposedly the “bread and butter” constituency of the Dems, why don’t they trust them to know whether or not they want to carry a gun or at least be the beneficiaries of the benefit of the doubt?
This was only 3 of the judges on the 9th. We know what will happen when the full 9th looks at it.
How about creating a framework to allow other states to collect damages from states who facilitate illegals who then cost other states money?
Well, there’s the rub, isn’t it? There is no downside for the American citizen to not having sanctuary cities, but there are plenty of actual and potential downsides for American citizens when sanctuary cities are allowed to do their thing, and many of the Americans who may be adversely affected by these policies do not reside in sanctuary cities (and have no electoral input into their policies). So the federal government, being concerned with protecting citizens throughout the country, must act to counter and prevent the actions of local jurisdictions that threaten the general welfare of the country.
Your mom probably said, “If your friend jumps off a cliff, should you?” In this case, if cities in your area of the country jump off a cliff, do they have the right to bring you with them? The sanctuary city movement threatens the general welfare, and therefor must be ceasted (as my drill sergeant used to say).
LA City Attorney Feuer’s position Is curious, since what the city is demanding is to pick and choose which laws they will obey.
The eerie similarities between the Jim Crow-era Democrats and 21st century Woke Democrats are striking.
No, it isn’t. The city is obeying all the laws, and does not seek to break any. It is simply exercising its constitutional right not to assist the feds in enforcing their laws. And it is unconstitutional for the federal government to compel it to provide such assistance by withholding so much money that the city would have no choice but to comply.
The president is not even allowed to punish the city by withholding any money; only Congress can do that, and even Congress can only do it if it says so explicitly, and keeps the cuts small enough that it’s realistic for the city to stand on its principles and refuse the money.
What the court said is that that’s not what’s happening here. Congress authorized the president to make these grants, and to set priorities for which projects deserve funding. The president merely made cooperation with ICE one of those priorities. LA is still eligible for funding, it’s just a low priority, so the available money will go to cities that better fit the criteria. That may be close to the line, but it doesn’t cross it.
In an exact analogy- it was apparently constitutional for the federal government to withhold federal highway funds from states that refused to establish the idiotic 55 MPH speed limit. And that wasn’t even a matter of states/cities refusing to comply with federal law since the federal government has no control over speed limit setting. It was plain out and out coercion.
The federal government does have immigration laws. And local and state law enforcement should cooperate with federal authorities in upholding them. If they’re actively NOT upholding the law- then what are they using federal law enforcement grant money for? If they feel free to actively oppose a law, they obviously don’t need extra law enforcement money.
You are obviously completely unfamiliar with that case, since it agrees 100% with what I wrote and is completely contrary to what you wrote.
No, it was not constitutional for the federal government to withhold even one penny; it was constitutional for Congress to do so, but only because it said explicitly that that was what it was doing, and because the cut was small enough not to be coercive.
Nor is this. There is no law requiring LA to cooperate with federal law enforcement. There can’t be. Congress has no authority to make such a law.
This is the proof that you are unfamiliar with the case. Had it been coercion it would have been unconstitutional.
It does, and nobody disputes that.
Why? The constitution says they don’t have to and can’t be made to.
For the purpose for which Congress appropriated it. Which was not helping ICE enforce immigration law.
Only Congress can say that, and it must do so unambiguously, and even then it must not be coercive. If the cut is so big the state can’t afford to absorb it, then it’s unconstitutional and Congress must keep giving the money. (Obviously conditions attached to new funding are by definition non-coercive, since everybody can afford to turn down money they’re not yet getting and have done without until now.)
Yep, the cuts were so small and inconsequential and non-coercive that 50 states out of 50 reduced their speed limit to 55.
However, IIRC, some of the states set speeding fines for between 55 and their previous speed limit at very small amounts, and one state even allowed the officer writing the ticket to collect the fine.
Tell me- did you actually live through that era?
I’ve read the decision, gospace. You haven’t. I know what it says. You don’t. Yes, those cuts were small and non-coercive, and that is the only reason they were not struck down. Cuts large enough to be coercive would have been unconstitutional and would have been struck down. If you didn’t know this then you shouldn’t discuss this case.
Reality 101- 50 states out of 50 complied. Hence- the cuts weren’t small and non-coercive regardless of what the court decision said and regardless of what you read.
Just like the tax wasn’t a tax regardless of what Chief Justice Roberts said.
Just because it’s been pronounced from on high doesn’t make it true.
No, gospace, the reality is that the cuts were small and non-coercive. No state was forced to comply. All 50 states could easily have chosen to absorb the cut and keep their speed limits, but chose voluntarily to keep the money and do as Congress asked. It was their decision that they’d rather have the money than the speed limit, just as every time you buy some unnecessary item it’s your decision whether you prefer the item or the money. The fact that millions of people purchase things all the time doesn’t mean any of them were coerced.
/This. Contrast with the Supremes breaking with the Obama admin on its attempt to coerce states to expand Medicare.
Sorry, there is NO constitutional right for a State, or any of its subordinate governments to refuse to assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal law. State governments are limited in what assistance they can provide based upon the Principle of Separation of Powers. State and local LEOs have NO authority to enforce federal laws, unless they are made members of a federal law enforcement agency. In fact, if a state or local jurisdiction refuses to allow certain federal law enforcement agents access to assets and facilities which are provided to other federal agents, this is tantamount to obstruction and is a criminal offense.
In the case of these Community Policing Grants, the monies are supposed to be used to target criminal activity. Remaining in this country, without legal authority, is a crime. And, the Congress has given the DOJ authority to set the standards for granting these grants and administering the program. So, just as the DOJ can refuse or cancel a Community Policing grant if the applicant refuses to address gang activity, it can do the same if it refuses to address immigration crime.
As you note, this places sanctuary political subdivisions very low on the totem pole for the available monies.
You are wrong. This is a fundamental right, recognized since the founding, and protected by the tenth amendment.
No, they are not. Separation of Powers has nothing to do with federal-state relations.
Wrong again. State & local LEOs have the authority to enforce federal laws, unless the federal government objects.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. It is a state’s constitutional right to deny such access if it so chooses.
Wrong again. It is not a crime.
Wrong yet again. Even Congress cannot condition funding of a state or subdivision thereof on its waiving its constitutional rights, unless it says so unambiguously. Delegating a grant program’s criteria to the DOJ is the very opposite of an unambiguous condition on funding. Which is why this case went to the court. What the majority on the court found was that this was not that; it was simply the government setting priorities. LA is still eligible for these grants, it’s just all the way in the back of the line, and according to this court that’s OK.
No, there is NO Constitutional Right which allows the States, or any of their political subdivisions, to refuse to assist the federal government in the enforcement of federal laws, if the Congress so directs them via legislation.
As to Separation Of Powers, it has everything to do with the relationship between state governments and the federal government in the area of law enforcement. State and local LEOs have NO authority to enforce federal laws. And federal LEOs have no authority to enforce state laws and local ordinances. The reason is the origin of the authority of the agents involved. The authority of state agents derives from the state, not the federal government. The authority of the federal agents derives from the federal government. And the states are NOT subordinate to the federal government. A state CAN grant the authority to enforce its laws to federal agents, through legislation. The federal authorities can NOT unilaterally assume that authority. And the federal government CAN grant state and local agents the authority to enforce federal laws, through legislation. But, again the state and local agents can NOT unilaterally assume the authority to enforce federal laws. In fact, state LEOs, have no authority to enforce the ordinances enacted by subordinate government bodies, such as towns, cities and counties, UNLESS state statute or local ordinance, expressly grants that authority to state agents. I am familiar wirh this separation of state and federal jurisdiction because of previous employment.
No, a state has NO Constitutional Right to unilaterally choose to obstruct a federal agent in the enforcement of federal law. Now, in the case of denying access to records and facilities, the denial has to be universal. The state or local agency can not decide to allow one federal agency to use its facilities in the enforcement of federal law and deny it to another federal LEA. That is willful obstruction.
As to remaining in the country without authorization, this is a crime. A crime is any act which is barred by legislation and for which a person can be detained and/or imprisoned. As a person can be detained and/or imprisoned for being in the US without legal authorization, this is a crime.
You keep coming back to the novel notion that ste states have some Constitutional Right to ignore federal law. This is simply FALSE. States have no Constitutional Right to decide which federal laws will apply within the borders of that particular state. In the case of LE grants, they can be made conditional on the recipient addressing certain criminal or public safety problems. So, it is possible for the DOJ to make addressing illegal immigration a condition of issuing the grant. The administration may have argued that it was not strictly denying issuance of these grants based solely upon the a refusal to aid federal law enforcement in the enforcement of immigration laws, but rather that it was prioritizing the issuance of the grant to those locals which agreed to assist in immigration law enforcement. As this is federal money, not state money, the feds can decide how they wish to spend it, for maximum effect.
You keep saying that, but it continues to be wrong. Congress has no authority to direct states or their subdivisions to assist the federal government in any way. Any such purported law is automatically void, and for the past 200 years every time Congress has tried to make such a law it’s been struck down.
You’re wrong about the separation of powers too. You simply do not understand the concept. It has nothing at all to do with federal-state relations. The separation of powers doctrine applies within a government, separating the executive, legislative, and judicial powers. That is all. State and local LEOs DO have the authority to enforce federal laws, so long as state or local law gives them that authority, and so long as federal law does not forbid it. No, the states are NOT subordinate to the federal government; but federal law is the law everywhere, so state and local LEOs can enforce it, unless the federal government says they can’t.
This is simply wrong. You’re making it up.
No, it is not. A crime is a felony or a misdemeanor. Remaining in the country illegally is neither.
Of course they don’t, and nobody claims they do. California fully acknowledges that federal immigration laws apply there, and does nothing to prevent ICE from enforcing them. It simply refuses to assist that enforcement, which the constitution says it can do.
True, but only Congress can do so, and only if it does so both unambiguously and without coercion. The DOJ has no authority to do so.
None of this is controversial. It’s clearly set out in South Dakota v Dole and elsewhere.
In 2012 the Supreme Court threw out most of Arizona’s SB 1070, saying (among other things) that state law cannot supersede Federal law on immigration. Federal immigration prohibits people from illegally entering the country, employers from hiring them, and the illegals from obtaining SSNs in order to legally work (we are all supposed to pay SS taxes, yes?). So help out a non-lawyer: why did SB 1070 get tossed because it tried to supersede Federal law, but cities and states thumbing their noses at Federal laws by forbidding law enforcement to cooperate with Federal law enforcement somehow … doesn’t? It seems to me sanctuary cities and states have their own sets of immigration laws that seem to override Federal immigration laws, and I thought the Supreme Court said that was naughty-naughty.
(I upvoted you because you still have the coolest avatar!)
State law cannot supersede federal law on anything. SB1070 didn’t supersede federal law. It allowed state LEOs to enforce federal law without the feds asking for such help, and against the feds’ explicit refusal of such help. The court said states may only help the feds if the feds want it.
Indeed, and California does not dispute this at all.
In the Arizona case, the decision was that the State of Arizona did not have the authority in US immigration at all. It had essentially surrendered that to the US government under the Constitution. The state statute, in question, adopted the federal statutory language, as a state law, which the state contended that its agents could enforce. But, the court said that only the federal government could enforce laws dealing with immigration status in the US and only it could authorize agents to police such status.
Where I believe that you are becoming confused is with the term duty. States have no DUTY to assist in the enforcement of federal law. However, the state government, just as with a lowly citizen, may not OBSTRUCT the federal government in the enforcement of federal law. Warning people of federal enforcement action is classic obstruction. Arbitrarily denying certain federal agencies access to local and state assets, which are available to other federal enforcement agencies, is obstruction.
This is true only if the federal government explicitly forbids the states from enforcing the specific law. As it did in this case. Arizona claimed it had an inherent right to enforce the federal law anyway, despite the federal government’s opposition, because federal law is local law. IMHO Arizona was correct, but unfortunately a majority on the Supreme Court disagreed.
But when the federal government doesn’t mind states enforcing its laws, they may do so.
No, it is not. Since, as you’ve finally acknowledged, the states have no duty to assist federal law enforcement, they are entitled to choose when they will do so and when they won’t. And they may order their subsidiary elements either to offer such assistance or to refuse it, as they choose. Which is why both California’s sanctuary law and Texas’s anti-sanctuary law are valid.
The federal government is not compelling the city to comply nor is it punishing the city for non-compliance. Federal grants are made at the discretion of the federal government. The federal government has determined that IT will get the most value out of the grant by giving the money to local law enforcement agencies that assist in enforcing federal laws. This makes perfect sense and is well within the authority of the federal government. Local jurisdictions apply for grants. There is no guarantee that they will get one. Indeed, if money isn’t given to one jurisdiction that means there’s more money for other jurisdictions. How the grant money is distributed is entirely at the federal government’s discretion. Having policies to inhibit the enforcement of federal law and of non-cooperation with federal law enforcement is simply not conducive to the acquisition of a federal law enforcement grant.
Federal funds are supposed to have strings.
Yes, but if those strings involve waiving a constitutional right Congress itself must attach them, and it must do so explicitly, and it must not cut existing funding so severely as to force compliance. The court said that’s not what’s happening here; this isn’t a string so much as a mere adjustment of spending priorities.
Of course there are strings. The Federal government has grant money, and the State has to make a competitive application. That is, the State, if they want the money, have to show that they will spend it in a way that furthers the intent of the grant program, and does it better than other projects submitted by other states.
And they do. The intent of the grant program has nothing to do with immigration law, or with state assistance in enforcing it. Congress and only Congress can condition funding on such assistance, but it can only do so unambiguously, and it cannot be coercive.
The grant may have nothing to do with federal immigration law per se, but the federal government has an interest in encouraging compliance with federal law and cooperation with federal law enforcement, and it can do so by giving grant money to those agencies that work best to further the federal government’s objectives while fulfilling the objectives of local law enforcement. What logical reason is there for the federal government to give a LE grant to a jurisdiction that inhibits the enforcement of federal law and has a policy of non-cooperation with federal LE (with respect to any federal laws), when it can give the grant to other agencies that assist in the enforcement of federal law? What your saying is nonsense. It’s obvious – if you want federal money, you must play ball. The federal government doesn’t just give out money for the good of local LE, it gives grants to those local LE agencies that improve the general welfare with their work, and not just the welfare of the locals. (That’s the only constitutional justification for federal grants.)
1. Only Congress may say that; the government can’t.
2. Congress must say it unambiguously.
3. Obviously every state and city can do without new funding. But even Congress, acting explicitly, is not allowed to cut existing funding if the purpose is to coerce a state into doing what Congress wants.
It doesn’t matter what the federal interest is, these are the rules. Grants are for the purpose Congress says they are, and the government can’t change that.
Because it fits the criteria that Congress set for the grant.
The District Judge whose nationwide injunction was overruled by the three judge 9th Circuit panel had a well earned reputation as an irascible wild man. He was frequently reversed by the 9th Circuit.
And the 9th Circuit was frequently reversed by the Supremes.
Judge and appellate panel selection is kind of a crapshoot here in the Wild Wild Judicial West.
Oops I did not identify the district judge. He was Manuel Real sitting in th
What’s the over/under on the 9th voting for en banc and reversing this ruling like they did in Peruta?
What’s the over/under on Roberts if it gets to the Supremes?
From the 9th Circuit website https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/content/view_db.php?pk_id=0000000899
Updated July 10, 2019
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is authorized 29 judgeships. There is one current vacancy and two future vacancies announced. The current vacancy has not been filled since the seat opened on December 31, 2016. The president has not made any nomination to the court.
Ninth Circuit district courts are authorized 112 judgeships. There are 25 current vacancies and 2 future vacancies announced. The duration of the vacancies ranges from 1,805 days to 6 days. The president has made six nominations.
From Epoch Times on May 27, 2019
https://www.theepochtimes.com/trump-may-help-bring-balance-to-california-based-ninth-circuit-court_2920746.html
Currently the court is comprised of 16 judges appointed by Democratic presidents and 11 judges appointed by Republican presidents. If Trump successfully fills the two vacant seats, it would place the court at 16 Democratic appointed judges and 13 Republican appointed judges. This would be unprecedented for the California-based circuit court, which has included judges such as the late Stephen Reinhardt, often called the “liberal lion” of the Ninth Circuit.
Can the withholdings be applied retroactively?
There are no withholdings. That’s the whole point of this decision. Withholdings would indeed be unconstitutional. This is simply setting priorities for who gets future funding. There’s not enough for everyone who meets the criteria, so some must be ahead of others in the line, and LA has just been sent to the back.
Milhouse… Wrong as usual..many sanctuary cities ARE violating Federal laws
Harboring — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who — knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Encouraging/Inducing — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) makes it an offense for any person who — encourages or induces an alien to come to, enter, or reside in the United States, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that such coming to, entry, or residence is or will be in violation of law.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting — Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
I’d list all the ways they are doing the above illegal actions but we all have been living above ground and have common sense…..
Wrong again. The sanctuary cities are not violating any of the above laws. If merely refusing to help ICE were a violation of any of the above laws, then those laws would automatically be unconstitutional and thus would not be laws. How many times do you have to have this explained: The constitution forbids the USA from commandeering state resources to help it do its job.
Legal, or Illegal, immigration laws, are to be invoked, & followed! This is for the protection of the Citizens of USA! Sanctuary cities, & Libretard GBMNT”S, are poking a finger in the eye of every citizen here, by doing this! No good can come from not “Vetting” all foreign people’s, that apply for entrance here! This is a counter-productive effort on the part of Liberals, to fight Trump, & not to protect us Citizens from criminals, & enemies of the State!
Any political party that engages in this type of obstructive activity are not “FRIENDS OF AMERICA”! {PLAin & simple}