SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Once Again, Trump Attack on Immigrants Rebuked by Federal Court
'Under our system of government, the President cannot coerce cities, counties and states to become agents of federal immigration enforcement by threatening the loss of funds appropriated by Congress.'
Apr 25, 2017
In the latest rebuke of President Donald Trump's anti-immigrant policies, a federal court judge on Tuesday ruled the administration's threat to withhold funds from so-called "sanctuary cities"--which offer modest safer harbor for immigrants and undocumented residents in the face of federal detention and deportation requests--as unconstitutional.
Issuing a temporary injunction against a move by the U.S. Justice Department to refuse grant money from California municipalities, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said the Trump administration's effort to withhold more than $1 billion in federal grants from Santa Clara and San Francisco counties was illegal.
Though the ruling affirmed the government may have some authority to seek local compliance with federal law, Orrick cited public comments by both President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence that the administration was reaching beyond legal limitations in order to punish cities which take a different approach to immigration.
"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote in his decision. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."
As the Washington Post explains:
Constitutional scholars like Ilya Somin at George Mason University have long argued that the Trump administration would lose a legal battle like this. You can't cut off funding for sanctuary cities willy-nilly, he says, because the Supreme Court has ruled you can't slap conditions on federal grants without explicitly telling states about the conditions.
[...]
It would take an act of Congress to go back and insert a clause declaring these unrelated law enforcement, health-care and poverty grants deliverable only if jurisdictions hand over their illegal immigrants for deportation when the government asks for them. (Congress getting involved in all this is impossible to imagine, but it's much, much, much slower than Trump just issuing an executive order to strip these cities of funding.)
Immigrant rights advocates welcomed the ruling.
"We are gratified that the court recognized the profound danger to our democracy posed by the President's attempt to exercise unconstitutional powers," said William Freeman, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in a statement. "Under our system of government, the President cannot coerce cities, counties and states to become agents of federal immigration enforcement by threatening the loss of funds appropriated by Congress."
"Once again, the courts have spoken to defend tolerance, diversity and inclusion form the illegal threats of the Trump administration," said Faiz Shakir, national political director for the ACLU, in a statement. "Once again, Trump has overreached and lost."
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
In the latest rebuke of President Donald Trump's anti-immigrant policies, a federal court judge on Tuesday ruled the administration's threat to withhold funds from so-called "sanctuary cities"--which offer modest safer harbor for immigrants and undocumented residents in the face of federal detention and deportation requests--as unconstitutional.
Issuing a temporary injunction against a move by the U.S. Justice Department to refuse grant money from California municipalities, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said the Trump administration's effort to withhold more than $1 billion in federal grants from Santa Clara and San Francisco counties was illegal.
Though the ruling affirmed the government may have some authority to seek local compliance with federal law, Orrick cited public comments by both President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence that the administration was reaching beyond legal limitations in order to punish cities which take a different approach to immigration.
"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote in his decision. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."
As the Washington Post explains:
Constitutional scholars like Ilya Somin at George Mason University have long argued that the Trump administration would lose a legal battle like this. You can't cut off funding for sanctuary cities willy-nilly, he says, because the Supreme Court has ruled you can't slap conditions on federal grants without explicitly telling states about the conditions.
[...]
It would take an act of Congress to go back and insert a clause declaring these unrelated law enforcement, health-care and poverty grants deliverable only if jurisdictions hand over their illegal immigrants for deportation when the government asks for them. (Congress getting involved in all this is impossible to imagine, but it's much, much, much slower than Trump just issuing an executive order to strip these cities of funding.)
Immigrant rights advocates welcomed the ruling.
"We are gratified that the court recognized the profound danger to our democracy posed by the President's attempt to exercise unconstitutional powers," said William Freeman, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in a statement. "Under our system of government, the President cannot coerce cities, counties and states to become agents of federal immigration enforcement by threatening the loss of funds appropriated by Congress."
"Once again, the courts have spoken to defend tolerance, diversity and inclusion form the illegal threats of the Trump administration," said Faiz Shakir, national political director for the ACLU, in a statement. "Once again, Trump has overreached and lost."
In the latest rebuke of President Donald Trump's anti-immigrant policies, a federal court judge on Tuesday ruled the administration's threat to withhold funds from so-called "sanctuary cities"--which offer modest safer harbor for immigrants and undocumented residents in the face of federal detention and deportation requests--as unconstitutional.
Issuing a temporary injunction against a move by the U.S. Justice Department to refuse grant money from California municipalities, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said the Trump administration's effort to withhold more than $1 billion in federal grants from Santa Clara and San Francisco counties was illegal.
Though the ruling affirmed the government may have some authority to seek local compliance with federal law, Orrick cited public comments by both President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence that the administration was reaching beyond legal limitations in order to punish cities which take a different approach to immigration.
"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote in his decision. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."
As the Washington Post explains:
Constitutional scholars like Ilya Somin at George Mason University have long argued that the Trump administration would lose a legal battle like this. You can't cut off funding for sanctuary cities willy-nilly, he says, because the Supreme Court has ruled you can't slap conditions on federal grants without explicitly telling states about the conditions.
[...]
It would take an act of Congress to go back and insert a clause declaring these unrelated law enforcement, health-care and poverty grants deliverable only if jurisdictions hand over their illegal immigrants for deportation when the government asks for them. (Congress getting involved in all this is impossible to imagine, but it's much, much, much slower than Trump just issuing an executive order to strip these cities of funding.)
Immigrant rights advocates welcomed the ruling.
"We are gratified that the court recognized the profound danger to our democracy posed by the President's attempt to exercise unconstitutional powers," said William Freeman, a senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, in a statement. "Under our system of government, the President cannot coerce cities, counties and states to become agents of federal immigration enforcement by threatening the loss of funds appropriated by Congress."
"Once again, the courts have spoken to defend tolerance, diversity and inclusion form the illegal threats of the Trump administration," said Faiz Shakir, national political director for the ACLU, in a statement. "Once again, Trump has overreached and lost."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy