Appeals Court: Trump’s Threatening Sanctuary Cities Exec Order Is Illegal

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: President Donald J. Trump listens to President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 in Washington... WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 16: President Donald J. Trump listens to President of the Republic of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev during a meeting in the Oval Office at the White House on Wednesday, May 16, 2018 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images) MORE LESS

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump’s executive order threatening to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with immigration authorities is unconstitutional, but a judge went too far when he blocked its enforcement nationwide, a U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday.

In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that the order exceeded the president’s authority.

“Absent congressional authorization, the administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals,” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority.

But he also said there wasn’t enough evidence to support a nationwide ban on the order and sent the case back to the lower court for more hearings on that question.

An email to a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department was not immediately returned.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in November that the order threatened all federal funding and that the president did not have the authority to attach new conditions to spending that was approved by Congress.

The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara. The executive order potentially jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the two counties, Orrick said, citing comments by Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence of the order’s scope.

The Trump administration said the order applied to a relatively small pot of money that already required compliance with immigration law.

Government attorney Chad Readler had told Orrick that the order applied to only three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants that would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara and possibly no money for San Francisco.

During arguments before the 9th Circuit in April, Thomas asked what the court was supposed to make of statements by Trump and his administration about wanting to withhold money from sanctuary cities.

Thomas also questioned whether the order would be constitutional if it applied to all types of funding, as the lower-court judge found.

Readler said the order was much narrower, and the judges should not focus on comments by the president or other administration officials.

The executive order is part of a push by the Trump administration to crack down on cities and states that generally don’t comply with U.S. immigration authorities.

The administration has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. It also has moved to block a key public safety grant from going to sanctuary cities and states.

The Trump administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust needed to get people to report crime.

18
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. MS-13! Terror! Fear! Fire! THUGS! Activist judges! 13 rotten Democrats! Hillary! No collusion, no collusion! Illegals! Build the wall! Get rid of all immigration! Blarg!!! Let me tell you, I know about this. It’s just the worst, the very terrible, kind of worst, like the time, you’ll remember this, like the time that I went to Chicago, and activists were there, I heard about it anyway, and he deserved it, you know, for what he did, and it’s all a witch hunt anyway, nobodies been charged or then, then, then I…it all goes back to them being jealous of my win, the biggest win, huge even, and hey…is that chocolate cake?

  2. Geez, it used to be you could persecute and oppress minorities and the downtrodden and not get hassled about it. This nation has really gone downhill. Someone should make it great again.

  3. Avatar for paulw paulw says:

    Readler said the order was much narrower, and the judges should not
    focus on comments by the president or other administration officials.

    Uh.

    So the next time a police officer tells me to stop, I shouldn’t focus on that comment.

  4. Judicial courage, #both_sides_have_good_arguments

  5. So much winning.

    Has he won any court case yet on any of his executive manbaby demands?

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

12 more replies

Participants

Avatar for system1 Avatar for paulw Avatar for srfromgr Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for ajileye Avatar for imkmu3 Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for lastroth Avatar for texastwostep Avatar for coimmigrant Avatar for quickq Avatar for captain_america

Continue Discussion