Sanctuary Cities - Legit?

[de officiis]

Judge Blocks Trump Effort to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

A judge in San Francisco on Tuesday temporarily blocked President Trump’s efforts to starve localities of federal funds when they limit their cooperation with immigration enforcement, a stinging rejection of his threats to make so-called sanctuary cities fall in line.

The judge, William H. Orrick of United States District Court, wrote that the president had overstepped his powers with his January executive order on immigration by tying billions of dollars in federal funding to immigration enforcement. Judge Orrick said only Congress could place such conditions on spending.

The ruling, which applies nationwide, was another judicial setback for the Trump administration, which has now seen three immigration orders stopped by federal courts in its first 100 days. And as with the rulings halting his two temporary bans on travel from several predominantly Muslim countries, the president’s own words were used against him.

Though Justice Department lawyers argued in the case that the government did not intend to withhold significant amounts of money, the judge noted that the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions had suggested the punishment could be far greater.

And that Judge is going to find himself in a lot of hot water later. On a side note, if you read his ruling upon why, it's opinion...not based off of fact at all, and if goes to the SC, Trump is going to win.

How will the judge be in "hot water"?

[clubgop]

It is baffling to me. Apparently cities feel that the federal government owes them money, whether or not they adhere to federal law. I'm no lawyer, but the argument strikes me as ridiculous. How can you tell the federal government that they have to keep paying you money even though you blatantly defy their laws?

Oh imagine that rectal clown shoes just cant fathom a judge in a courtroom pretty much doing whatever the fuck they feel like but has perfect perception and faith of courtroom in Texas concerning one Alex Jones. You are a lying sack of clown car shit, all twisted up in a gordian knot.

[DBTrek]

In case any of you wondered what it's like to have a prescription medicine junkie follow you around and spew senseless random bile. There it is.

[TheReal_ND]

This is nostalgic DB posting.

/comfy/

[de officiis]

California judge jumped the gun in rush to block Trump's immigration order

Jonathan Turley

...
As I will explain below, these cities have some legitimate objections to the order and some supporting case law. However, on its face, these cases were premature under governing precedent. The administration has not designated a single city to be in violation of the order and has not indicated how it will adjust or deny federal grants. . . .

First, it is important to note that there are deeply troubling elements to the order for those of us who both favor state rights and fear executive overreach. Conditions on federal funds should come not from the President but from Congress. Moreover, some cities raise legitimate concerns over the constitutionality of holding detainees after they are legally free to leave custody and have not been charged with a new crime or made subject to a formal warrant.

However, it seems facially premature to state globally that "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement." It is not known what federal funding would be denied or the relationship drawn in such a decision. As a threshold question without any specific denial, the court would have to rule that effectively no denial of any federal funding would pass constitutional muster. That is rather difficult to square with existing case law, particularly when the standard for a preliminary injunction requires a showing of a likelihood to prevail on the merits.

There is even a fundamental disagreement on the scope of the order, if enforced. San Francisco and Santa Clara County insisted, implausibly, that the order could deny billions of dollars in federal funding. . . . the Justice Department has affirmed that the order would only impact Justice Department and Homeland Security funds, which is a relatively small fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

Despite my admiration for Judge Orrick as a jurist, he may have gotten a bit ahead of his skis on issuing the preliminary order on this record.

Adding to this concern is Orrick’s reliance (as with prior judges in the immigration cases) on the public statements of Trump. Orrick maintained "if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments." I have previously expressed concern over the use of such statements, particularly the use of Trump’s campaign rhetoric as part of the interpretation of his immigration orders. Orrick cited comment by Trump referencing the order as "a weapon" to use against jurisdictions obstructing his immigration policies. That does not alone seem particularly enlightening on these questions, particularly when the Justice Department is expressly limiting its arguments in court. . . .

. . .

One of the central challenges concerns unconstitutional coercion. In 2012, the court handed down National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, says that the government cannot use the threat of large cuts in federal funds to “coerce” states into adopting federal policies. However, it is relatively rare to find such coercion and the courts have upheld the right to condition federal funds. The 2012 case involved a virtual shutdown of health care funds. This involves grants, which the government has not identified beyond narrowing the scope to a small subset of grants. It is true that such conditions should come from Congress, but Congress also gave discretion to the Executive Branch in the granting of such funds between rivaling jurisdictions. Moreover, in South Dakota v. Dole (1987), the court upheld conditions on highway funds that forced changes in drinking ages because these changes were “relevant to the federal interest in the project and the overall objectives thereof.” That would seem equally compelling in sharing immigration-related information.

A second claim concerns unconstitutional “commandeering.” In 1997 in Printz v. United States that the federal government cannot order states or cities to enforce federal law. However, Printz involved ordered state and city officials to effectively administer the interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act. The thrust of the Trump order goes to “attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.” There have been alleged cases of active efforts by judges or officials to shield targets of immigration officials. Moreover, in Reno v. Condon (2000), the court unanimously rejected a challenge under a commandeering rationale of the Driver’s Privacy Protection Act. . . . .

There remains the problem of conditions coming from the Executive rather than the Legislative Branch, though the administration is citing one federal immigration law. The result is still fairly uncharted water for the courts. The administration is seeking to distinguish between jurisdictions that are active partners in supporting federal policies against those that are obstructionist. Many would agree with that distinction as reasonable.

In the end, timing is everything in constitutional law. For that reason, this injunction seems more premature than preliminary in nature.

[Fife]

The animating contest of .... federalism?

Awesome!

What is this light-weight twaddle?
OPINE, man.
OPINE.

What are your thoughts on this? How can cities tell the Federal government "No, you can't decide NOT to give us money simply because we're in open defiance of you"?

HOW?

Oh I can opine, alright. Been busy today with a day off midweek at Kentucky Lake for a little fishing. Bass was mediocre, Bream and Redear was great. Currently the grease is hot, the beer is cold, and the Preds come on the radio in about a minute. I'll be right back in rush hour in the morning waiting for my turn on the line.

As for the sanctuary cities, I'm a fan of the 10th first and foremost. Trump talking shit to the panty waisted cities and the cities talking shit back is music to my ears.

Congress, as usual, is taking a powder. Fucking burn it down.

[The Conservative]

Judge Blocks Trump Effort to Withhold Money From Sanctuary Cities

And that Judge is going to find himself in a lot of hot water later. On a side note, if you read his ruling upon why, it's opinion...not based off of fact at all, and if goes to the SC, Trump is going to win.

How will the judge be in "hot water"?

Obama could withhold money if states didn't put in "unisex" bathrooms for "transgendered" people but this was against the law...explain to me how? The judge is going to be in hot water because... he put opinion in front of law.

[de officiis]

And that Judge is going to find himself in a lot of hot water later. On a side note, if you read his ruling upon why, it's opinion...not based off of fact at all, and if goes to the SC, Trump is going to win.

How will the judge be in "hot water"?

Obama could withhold money if states didn't put in "unisex" bathrooms for "transgendered" people but this was against the law...explain to me how? The judge is going to be in hot water because... he put opinion in front of law.

The worst thing that might happen to him is that he'll be reversed by the circuit court of appeals. It that's "hot water," then I concede the point. But it's actually tepid water, at best.

[Okeefenokee]

How will the judge be in "hot water"?

Obama could withhold money if states didn't put in "unisex" bathrooms for "transgendered" people but this was against the law...explain to me how? The judge is going to be in hot water because... he put opinion in front of law.

The worst thing that might happen to him is that he'll be reversed by the circuit court of appeals. It that's "hot water," then I concede the point. But it's actually tepid water, at best.

Hmmmm. Maybe a week without aids should be added to the quiver.

Wouldn't that get you lawyers in line?

[katarn]

Didn't we have a fucking war about this?

If said war is not mentioned in Harry Potter series or rebooted as a netflix superhero movie, no one under 35 will be aware of it.

In large part, yeah. I'm disappointed at what most of the under 20 crowd thinks is entertainment, and their general ignorance of history. I understand not knowing Cincinnatus, but the name Julius Caesar ought to ring a bell. I don't much subscribe to "those who are ignorant of their history are doomed to repeat it," but there are similar patterns. These probably show more of human nature than inevitabilities, but a basic understanding is helpful.

One thing about Trump I've seen is that more people are politically aware (that they often fall on the side of little SJWs is disappointing, but I usually find active opposition to be better than someone abstaining on the side without any care), and I've seen little communities of right-leaning people come up. They use humor a lot where I am now. There is this one girl- active to the point of an internship or something at the local Democrat offices- who won't even try to talk politics with me anymore. I asked her back in August what she thought of the DNC email leaks, and the terse answer was the last I heard on the world.