Trump wins ruling vs. sanctuary cities

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Trump administration can withhold some federal funds for local policing from so-called sanctuary cities.

A three-judge panel of the court ruled 2–1 that the Justice Department could deny Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants to cities and states that have “sanctuary” policies prohibiting law-enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The two Bush-appointed judges voted in te majority.

Los Angeles, a sanctuary city, sued the Justice Department when it was denied a $3 million grant under the administration’s policy. The Ninth Circuit’s ruling reversed the decision of a California court in that suit. The Los Angeles city attorney's office did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment.

“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,” Judge Sandra Ikuta  wrote for the majority. “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.”

In dissent, Judge Kim Wardlaw, called the DOJ's objective of attempting to force local authorities to cooperate on illegal immigration “Orwellian.”

"Nothing in the congressional record nor the Act itself remotely mentions immigration or immigration enforcement as a goal," she wrote. "In the quarter-century of the Act's existence, Congress has not once denoted civil immigration enforcement as a proper purpose for COPS grants."

"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."

The ruling is a rare win for the Trump administration. It had lost in previous attempts to cut or curb funding for other programs run by law enforcement in sanctuary cities. The Trump administration changed the requirements of the COPS grant to include immigration enforcement.

Federal courts have blocked earlier efforts by the Trump administration to withhold money from sanctuary cities, including an executive order issued by Trump in 2017 that would have barred them from receiving federal grants "except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes." Courts also barred the Justice Department from imposing new immigration enforcement-related conditions on Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, the biggest source of federal funding to state and local jurisdictions.

"What the Justice Department was doing before, they were trying to force sanctuary cities to do things, and yank money from them retroactively if they didn't," said David Levine, a professor at University of California Hastings College of the Law.

"They've gotten a little more sophisticated now. They're saying, 'You don't have to take this money, but if you want it, it comes with strings attached.' That's a well understood way the federal government gets states to do things. You don't use a stick, you use a carrot."

_____________________________________________________________

Judge calls threat vs. sanctuary cities 'unconstitutional'

SCREEN CAPTURE / NBC

Demonstrators at San Francisco's City Hall.

IN ANOTHER LEGAL SETBACK, a judge ruled that Donald Trump's threats to cut federal funding to so-called sancturary cities is "unconstitutional on its face."
U.S. District Judge William Orrick Monday (Nov. 20) permanently blocked Trump's executive order that sought cities' assistance in arresting, detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants.

The Trump administration had threatened to cut federal law enforcement grants from cities or counties that fought Trump’s efforts to combat undocumented immigration and said it would publicly shame localities that failed to comply with attempts to increase deportations.

“The counties have demonstrated that the executive order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights,” Orrick wrote.

The city and county of San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that cooperating with immigration authorities in its efforts to deport immigrants would hurt its own law enforcement efforts, especially among immigrant communities.

RELATED: Orrick upholds ruling against Trump punishing 'sanctuary' cities

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee applauded the ruling, declaring the city “is and will remain a sanctuary city. We know that sanctuary cities are safer, healthier and more productive places to live.” 

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera, who filed two lawsuits against the Trump administration, called the decision “a victory for the American people” and said the case was “a check on the president’s abuse of power.”

“This executive order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry,” Herrera said in a statement. “This president and his administration have been trying to twist facts, stoke fears and demonize immigrants to score cheap political points. The American people are too smart for that.”

"The only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him. That’s what San Francisco has done," said Herrera.

Orrick strongly considered Trump’s own statements and threats in writing his ruling, including an instance where the president said he would use the executive order as “a weapon” against jurisdictions that disagreed with his policies.

A lawyer for the U.S. Department of Justice  argued during a hearing before Orrick in April that the executive order applied to only a few grants for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco.

READ Judge Orrick's decision here.

But the judge disagreed, saying in his rulings that the order was written broadly to "reach all federal grants" and potentially jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to San Francisco and Santa Clara.

He cited comments by the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence that the order was intended to target a wide array of federal funding. And he said the president himself had called it a "weapon" to use against recalcitrant cities.

As recently as last Wednesday, the Justice Department told 29 states, cities or counties it believes they are violating a law prohibiting them from limiting information sharing with U.S. immigration officials, and it asked them for details on their compliance.

The move, which could result in the jurisdictions being added to a list of five other cities and counties the government says are violating federal law, widens the effort by President Donald Trump to cut money to so-called sanctuary cities. His administration says these places shelter immigrants living in the country illegally.

The DOJ said that it would appeal Orrick's decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Ten days after Trump's Inauguration, San Francisco became the first entity to sue Trump over his executive order to strip federal funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Santa Clara County and other local governments soon followed.

San Francisco had about $2 billion at stake. That included $1.2 billion in annual operating funds, or about 13 percent of San Francisco’s budget; and another $800 million in multi-year federal grants that are not part of the annual operating budget and used primarily for large infrastructure projects, like bridges, roads and public transportation.

That lawsuit is the first of two that Herrera has brought against the Trump administration over federal funding for sanctuary cities.

The second lawsuit, filed Aug. 11, seeks to invalidate grant conditions that U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions separately sought to place on a group of U.S. Department of Justice grants for local law enforcement. Those conditions came after the court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the first executive order in April. That case is ongoing.

_________________________________________________________________________

DOJ gives sanctuary cities final chance to comply with Trump's immigration rules

SCREEN CAPTURE / FOX

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions

IN THE ONGOING war between the Trump administration and a host of cities, counties and the State of California, the Justice Department today (Oct. 12) fired off another salvo against those jurisdictions that have refused to comply with the questionable immigration policies.

Initially, the DOJ is targeting seven jurisdictions following a preliminary assessment of the jurisdictions’ compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. These jurisdictions were identified in a May 2016 report by the Department of Justice’s Inspector General as having laws that potentially violate 8 U.S.C. 1373. 

The following jurisdictions have preliminarily been found to have laws, policies, or practices that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1373: 

• Cook County, Illinois; 
• Chicago, Illinois; 
• New Orleans, Louisiana; 
• New York, New York; and 
• Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

The Trump administration has taken a hardline position against so-called "sanctuary cities" claiming they leave violent criminals on the streets. The assessment is its latest effort to force "sanctuary cities" to comply with federal immigration orders.

RELATED: Judge upholds injunction vs. federal actions against 'sanctuary' jurisdictions

Proponents of "sanctuary cities," like Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, say they create trust between police and immigrants, who otherwise might be afraid to report crimes.

Mayor Kenney said Philadelphia welcomes immigrants and supports its immigrant communities.

"We're doing smart policing and, as a result, we had the lowest level of crime in 2016 that we've had in 40 years," Kenney said before the latest DOJ warning. "We will not let this administration interfere with our longstanding efforts to bring members of Philadelphia's immigrant community from the shadows."

Philadelphia has filed a lawsuit against the Session's policy tying federal funds to compliance with immigration rules alleging that new JAG funding requirements that force cities to abandon "sanctuary city" policies are unlawful.

Two federal judges, in California and Chicago, have ruled that the Trump administration's new requirements for receiving a key law enforcement grant that hinged on immigration enforcement could cause "irreparable harm," adding that the city had shown a "likelihood of success" in its case that Attorney General Jeff Sessions exceeded his authority in requiring local jurisdictions to comply with the new standards.

U.S. District Court Judge Harry D. Leinenweber blocked the DOJ from enforcing the new measures, which it introduced earlier this summer, meaning cities applying for the funds this year will not have to comply.

"The harm to the city's relationship with the immigrant community, if it should accede to the conditions, is irreparable," Leinenweber wrote. "Once such trust is lost, it cannot be repaired through an award of money damages."

The DOJ also found no evidence that the following jurisdictions are currently out of compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373: 

• Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; and 
• the State of Connecticut. 

The department also previously sent letters to the following jurisdictions notifying them that the department found no evidence that they are currently out of compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373: 

• Clark County, Nevada; and 
• Miami-Dade County, Florida. 

Jurisdictions that were found to have possible violations of 8 U.S.C 1373 will have until Oct. 27, 2017 to provide additional evidence that the interpretation and application of their laws, policies, or practices comply with the statute. 

“Jurisdictions that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary policies’ also adopt the view that the protection of criminal aliens is more important than the protection of law-abiding citizens and of the rule of law,” said Sessions. 

“I commend the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the State of Connecticut on their commitment to complying with Section 1373, and I urge all jurisdictions found to be out of compliance in this preliminary review to reconsider their policies that undermine the safety of their residents. We urge jurisdictions to not only comply with Section 1373 but to establish sensible and effective partnerships to properly process criminal aliens.”

Judge blocks Texas anti-immigrant law

YOUTUBE

Texas state Rep. Gene Wu fought back tears in opposing SB 4.

A FEDERAL district judge on Wednesday (AUG. 30) blocked temporarily a proposed Texas law that would have banned sanctuary cities in the state, just two days before implementation of the law.

Federal District Court Judge Orlando Garcia granted a preliminary injunction of the sanctuary cities ban, Senate Bill 4, saying in his ruling that the law would have eroded the relationship between local law enforcement and immigrant communities.

In a 94-page ruling, Garcia wrote that there "is overwhelming evidence by local officials, including local law enforcement, that SB 4 will erode public trust and make many communities and neighborhoods less safe," adding that "localities will suffer adverse economic consequences which, in turn, will harm the state of Texas."

RELATED: Lawmaker's emotional appeal cites anti-Asian history

“Texans are still under threat from a catastrophic hurricane and the last thing they need is Trump’s deportation force." said Gilberto Hinojosa, chair of the Democratic Party.

“Texas Democrats applaud the Court’s decision to immediately halt Gov. Greg Abbott’s dangerous bill.

“Our communities and police chiefs understand the ‘show-me-your-papers’ bill is dangerous and makes no one safer.

The new law was preempted by federal immigration law, which supersedes state law, the judge found.

"The Court cannot and does not second guess the Legislature," Garcia continued. "However, the state may not exercise its authority in a manner that violates the United States Constitution."

Garcia, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton in 1994, is the Chief United States District Judge of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.

The would-be law, SB4, was signed by Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R) in May,. If implemented it would allow Texas state officials to fine local officials who implement policies aimed at limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. State officials can even remove those local officials from office, the bill says.

If implemented, the would have allowed law enforcement agencies to stop and question anyone who is suspected to be undocumented. About 40 percent of Texas' population are immigrants with large pockets of South Asians, Vietnamese, Chinese and Filipinos.

Abbott said the state would appeal the judge's ruling.

The suit was filed by Texas largest cities, including Houston, the ACLU and the League of United Latin American Citizens. SB4 was opposed by many of the state's police chiefs and law enforcement agencies.

_________________________________________________________________

House passes two anti-immigrant bills

WHILE ALL EYES are focused on the Russia probe and Trumpcare, the U.S. House of Representatives approved two anti-immigrant bills with serious consequences for immigrant communities in the U.S., and would both undermine public safety and tear families apart. 

“These bills are riddled with constitutional violations that completely disregard the civil and human rights of immigrants.," said Lorella Praeli, director of immigration policy and campaigns for the ACLU. "Despite claims to the contrary, Kate’s Law and the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act will make our communities less safe by undermining the trust that law enforcement builds with its communities — citizen and immigrant alike. The true intent of these bills is to empower Trump’s deportation force and anti-immigrant agenda."

The bills are:

• H.R. 3003 allows the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to withhold crucial law enforcement and terrorism funding from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit how their police can work with federal immigration agencies.

• H.R. 3004 expands criminal sentences for undocumented immigrants who reenter, or attempt to reenter, the U.S. It also expands the population of people who would be subject to criminal prosecution for such crimes, including individuals who seek to apply for asylum and surrender themselves at the border, as well as individuals with no criminal history.  

"Their first bill, the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act, effectively declares war on American cities, law enforcement, and immigrant communities by making deporting immigrants more of a priority than protecting communities," said Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., chair of the Congresional Asian Pacific American Caucus. 

"There is abundant evidence that sanctuary and community trust policies make communities safer," agreed Asian American Advancing Justice, a coalition of five civil rights organizations. "As Arizona and Texas have shown us, forcing local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws increases racial profiling and distrust of law enforcement by communities of color."

“The second bill, Kate’s Law, is even worse," continued the AAAJ statement. "This is politically-driven legislation intended to create a fear of immigrants, even though repeated studies have shown immigrants commit fewer crimes. It goes so far that it criminalizes immigrants trying to rejoin their families or refugees fleeing violence. This is shameful."

Approximately 40 percent of all immigrants come to the U.S. from Asia, and 1.6 million of those immigrants are undocumented. Anti-immigrant policies create a climate of fear for all immigrants, regardless of status.

"Criminalizing victims of human trafficking, asylum seekers, good Samaritans, and victims of violence under the guise of safety is unacceptable," said Rep. Pramila Jayapa, D-Wash. "I reject these fear-mongering bills, and I will continue to fight to welcome the ‘huddled masses, yearning to breathe free,’ even as my Republican colleagues attempt to slam the door in their faces.”

Anti-immigrant rhetoric has been a key part of Donald Trump and his campaign and administration. His push for the a wall between the U.S. and Mexico and his executive orders limiting travel from six Muslim-dominated countries is part of creating an environment of fear to motivate his followers to support a dictator-like president.

A Pew Charitable Trust survey shows that as many as 66 percent of registered voters who supported Trump consider immigration a “very big problem,” while only 17 percent of Hillary Clinton’s supporters said the same. Seventy-nine percent of Trump supporters embrace the proposal to build a wall “along the entire U.S. border with Mexico.” Moreover, 59 percent of Trump supporters actively associate “unauthorized immigrants with serious criminal behavior.”

In Trump, his supporters find a line of talk and thinking that supports their own xenophobia and fear of the "other."

Federal judge bars Trump reprisals against sanctuary governments

Asian Americans protest against Donald Trump's immigration policies.

IN A SEVERE SETBACK to the Trump administration, a federal judge in California said any attempt to cut off federal funding to sanctuary cities is "clearly unconstitutional."

U.S. District William H. Orrick on Tuesday barred the Trump administration from enforcing part of Donald Trump's January executive order that withheld funds from sanctuary cities — concluding that that action would be "clearly unconstitutional."

The ruling prevents Trump from withholding funds from jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal agencies to deport undocumented immigrants,Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction — sought by San Francisco and Santa Clara counties in California — against enforcement of Section 9(a) of the January 25, 2017, executive order.

San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee

"San Francisco is and will remain a Sanctuary City. We know that Sanctuary Cities are safer, healthier, more productive places to live," said San Franciscco Mayor Ed Lee in a press release. "San Francisco’s Sanctuary City laws are in compliance with federal law. If the federal government believes there is a need to detain a serious criminal they can obtain a criminal warrant, which we will honor, as we always have."The court order comes days after Attorney General Jeff Sessions warned cities, counties and states theater refusing to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement would lose millions of dollars in federal grants.

Orrick's order renders toothless the threat against those local governments - such as San Francisco and Santa Clara counties - that "refuse to comply."

Last Friday, the DOJ sent letters to those sanctuary jurisdictions across the nation from New York City to Los Angeles. 

“Failure to comply with this condition could result in the withholding of grant funds, suspension or termination of the grant, ineligibility for future [Office of Justice Programs] grants or subgrants, or other action, as appropriate,” according to the letter, signed by Alan Hanson, acting assistant attorney general for the Office of Justice Programs.

According to the press release, the jurisdictions have a deadline of June 30, 2017, to “provide documentation and an opinion from legal counsel” confirming their compliance.

Orrick's decision states the executive order goes beyond the president's authority under the 10th Amendment, which limits the federal government's authority over local governments. "The Executive Order uses coercive means in an attempt to force states and local jurisdictions to honor civil detainer requests, which are voluntary 'requests' precisely because the federal government cannot command states to comply with them under the Tenth Amendment," it reads.

The judge took into account the statements of Trump and Sessions in speeches and interviews that warned cities that they would lose public safety funds if they did not comply with federal immigration agents' attempts to locate and detain undocumented immigrants. "If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote.

Orrick's ruling states the EO goes beyond the president's authority under the 10th Amendment, which places restrictions on how much authority the federal government could have over local jurisdictions. "The Executive Order uses coercive means in an attempt to force states and local jurisdictions to honor civil detainer requests, which are voluntary 'requests' precisely because the federal government cannot command states to comply with them under the Tenth Amendment," it reads.

Orrick's decision follows on other injunctions issued by federal judges in Washington, California, and Hawaii that have called into question the constitutionality of the president's other executive order pertaining to those traveling or immigrating from seven Muslim-majority countries. Last month, Federal Judge Derrick Watson of Hawaii further blocked the president's revised version of the same order.

###