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.

_________________________________________________________________________

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.

###