Trump crackdown on sanctuary cities permanently blocked by federal judge
A federal judge in California on Monday permanently blocked President Trump’s executive order to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick ruled that the White House does not have the authority to impose new conditions on spending already approved by Congress.
“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,” the judge wrote in his order.
The latest decision is in line with the argument Orrick made in April that temporarily halted the administration’s attempt to crack down on sanctuary cities, prompting an appeal.
Trump has campaigned on ending sanctuary cities. He issued an executive order that called on cutting federal funds from cities as a penalty for shielding illegal immigrants.
"The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law," a Department of Justice spokesman said in a statement. "The Justice Department will vindicate the President's lawful authority to direct the executive branch."
The judge’s ruling on Monday came after two California counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration.
"President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can't grant himself new authority because he feels like it," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement, adding that the ruling was “a victory for the American people and the rule of law.”
A DOJ lawyer argued in April that the initiative would only apply to a few federal grants, barely affecting the funding in the two counties that filed the lawsuits.
But the judge disagreed, saying the order was written vaguely and could “reach all federal grants” – potentially leading to cutbacks of millions of dollars to Santa Clara and San Francisco.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/11/21/trump-crackdown-on-sanctuary-cities-permanently-blocked-by-federal-judge.html
Tags
Who is online
57 visitors
Hum..Judge Orrick sounds very familiar.......Appointed by Obama!.......blocked the release of videos of Planned Parenthood!.....and one more thing - it was alleged (by David Daleiden) that this Ultra liberal judge had an association with Planned Parenthood, which he lied about during his 2013 Senate confirmation hearings
What PP videos? Do you mean the ones that were hoaxes?
Baby parts! Baby parts! Careful what you say, or another ignorant teavangelical will go out and shoot up a PP clinic.
No, the videos were on YouTube, they were real, and real conversations were recorded, one of the most interesting by the female doctor who talked all about the business of buying and selling baby body parts, as she nonchalantly ate her salad. Videos are commonly edited, but the incriminating reality was left in there. Don't know if the vids are still there.
Wrong! They were edited to look incriminating. I suppose that's why the guy who made the videos is facing legal repercussions. Investigations into PP after those videos were released founs no wrongdoing on PP'S part.
What does PP do that's wrong? They only donate fetal tissue, with permission. But they don't sell it, and investigations into PP never found evidence that they did.
They would have to get permission to donate from the woman agreeing to donate. And as I said, federal investigations into PP didn't find any wrong going on their part, including not actually selling fetal tissues.
If there's no evidence or proof of wrongdoing, then there's really no case against PP.
Not at all. Investigations into PP didn't find any wrong doing!
That's what the CMP claims. Not that I have reason to believe a word of what they say.
They can say whatever they want. But unless there's proven action to accompany what they say, then it's all irrelevant.
If you want to deny women medical services, then it's clear you don't care about women.
That's not always an option for many women. But if they can go to other places, what difference does it make if they go to PP? I don't see you or pro-lifers protesting those "other places."
Except PP didn't sell "baby parts." So your assertion to the counter is wrong!
In other words, you have nothing but want to believe PP did something wrong. Got it.
So? What does that have to do with anything?
Mmmm, deep fried fetus. You can almost taste the stem cells.
As usual, another Cali judge forgets who writes the laws and who is supposed to enforce them.
On the contrary, this Cali judge just reminded Trump and his administration of that fact!
Nice try Willy - Congress writes the laws - judges are to ensure those laws, AS WRITTEN, are complied with. Presidents have Executive Orders, that are not laws, and judges can strike them down.
Congress wrote a number of laws regarding immigration and there are three that are still in effect. All three deal with this phrase "aiding and abetting" as a violation of the laws on immigration. That is what "sanctuary cities" are getting slapped with along with the old fact that ONLY the Feds/Congress, per Article 1, Section 8, "The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization". Congress HAS established an uniform Rule of Naturalization.
1907. Title 8, U.S.C. 1324(a) Offenses
Title 8, U.S.C. § 1324(a) defines several distinct offenses related to aliens. Subsection 1324(a)(1)(i)-(v) prohibits alien smuggling, domestic transportation of unauthorized aliens, concealing or harboring unauthorized aliens, encouraging or inducing unauthorized aliens to enter the United States, and engaging in a conspiracy or aiding and abetting any of the preceding acts. Subsection 1324(a)(2) prohibits bringing or attempting to bring unauthorized aliens to the United States in any manner whatsoever, even at a designated port of entry. Subsection 1324(a)(3).
Harboring -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it an offense for any person who -- knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation.
Conspiracy/Aiding or Abetting -- Subsection 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) expressly makes it an offense to engage in a conspiracy to commit or aid or abet the commission of the foregoing offenses.
Those are the laws that the Sanctuary Cities are knowing or in reckless disregard violating. Those are the laws that DOJ, under their authority of enforcement, can, and will, use against Sanctuary cities.
Well done and PENALTIES need to be added to the OFFENSES!
Here ya are Vic -
Penalties -- The basic statutory maximum penalty for violating 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(i) and (v)(I) (alien smuggling and conspiracy) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both. With regard to violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(ii)-(iv) and (v)(ii), domestic transportation, harboring, encouraging/inducing, or aiding/abetting, the basic statutory maximum term of imprisonment is 5 years, unless the offense was committed for commercial advantage or private financial gain, in which case the maximum term of imprisonment is 10 years. In addition, significant enhanced penalties are provided for in violations of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1) involving serious bodily injury or placing life in jeopardy. Moreover, if the violation results in the death of any person, the defendant may be punished by death or by imprisonment for any term of years. The basic penalty for a violation of subsection 1324(a)(2) is a fine under title 18, imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(A). Enhanced penalties are provided for violations involving bringing in criminal aliens, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i), offenses done for commercial advantage or private financial gain, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(ii), and violations where the alien is not presented to an immigration officer immediately upon arrival, 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(2)(B)(iii). A mandatory minimum three year term of imprisonment applies to first or second violations of § 1324(a)(2)(B)(i) or (B)(ii). Further enhanced punishment is provided for third or subsequent offenses.
COMEDY! You actually think just because Congress passes a law that it is automatically Constitutional?! Comedy!
So if Congress suddenly passes a law that states you can shoot a person in the head on alternate Thursdays, then it cant be contested or interrupted to be illegal or unconstitutional?!
You got it wrong, the POTUS doesn't write any laws, that is up to the Congress and, the law has to agree with the Constitution, if it doesn't the law isn't valid.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[
The Tenth Amendment (Amendment X) to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, was ratified on December 15, 1791.[1] It expresses the principle of federalism and states' rights, which strictly supports the entire plan of the original Constitution for the United States of America, by stating that the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people.
The amendment was proposed by Congress in 1789 during its first term following the Constitutional Convention and ratification of the Constitution. It was considered by many members as a prerequisite of such ratification[2] particularly to satisfy demands by the Anti-Federalism movement that opposed the creation of a stronger U.S. federal government.
In drafting this amendment, its framers had two purposes in mind: first, as a necessary rule of construction; and second, as a reaffirmation of the nature of the federal system of freedom.[3][4
The Fifth Amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Fifth Amendment (Amendment V) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights and protects individuals from being compelled to be witnesses against themselves in criminal cases. "Pleading the Fifth" is a colloquial term for invoking the right that allows witnesses to decline to answer questions where the answers might incriminate them, and generally without having to suffer a penalty for asserting the right. This evidentiary privilege ensures that defendants cannot be compelled to become witnesses at their own trials. If, however, they choose to testify, they are not entitled to the right during cross-examination, where questions are relevant to their testimony on direct examination.[1] The Amendment requires that felonies be tried only upon indictment by a grand jury. Federal grand juries can force people to take the witness stand, but defendants in those proceedings have Fifth Amendment privileges until they choose to answer any question. To claim the privilege for failure to answer when being interviewed by police, the interviewee must have explicitly invoked the constitutional right when declining to answer questions.
The Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause provides the right to be tried only once in federal court for the same offense. The Amendment also has a Due Process Clause (similar to the one in the 14th Amendment) as well as an implied equal protection requirement (Bolling v. Sharpe). Finally, the Amendment requires that the power of eminent domain be coupled with "just compensation" for those whose property is taken.
According to the judge, Trump's order violates both of these amendments. Do you know more than a Federal judge? I doubt it.
Really? Cite me ONE LAW Obama created? Just ONE!
You see just because you say so doesn't make it so!
That doesn't matter to folks like him, just the meme matters.
daca
Ahhhh yes, after 60 years of saying the 10th Amendment was nothing more than a dog whistle, progressives now, suddenly, have discovered it's value!!!
So, if Congress giveth, can Congress can also taketh away? I doubt there would be much bipartisan support as the asshats wanna keep their jobs but, I guess if the judge is going to cite Constitutional reasons, Congress could just do their jobs and at least threaten could they not?
Umm.....newsflash they did try it....the No Sanctuary for Criminals Act passed the House but didn't go any further because even they knew it wouldn't pass constitutional muster, but that didn't stop Trump huh? Why? Because he thinks he has his own personal court that will just make it so!
You have an activist view of the Constitution. "Activist judge": Judges who look for legal justification to enforce their desired ends. Judge Orrick is the epitome of an activist judge.
Activist judge?! Comedy! Republicans successfully argued this exact same thing regarding states rights 5 years ago when a judge ruled in their favor when it came to Obamacare!....but yet somehow no one regarded that judge as an "activist"!........that rich!
So let me see if I have this right conservatives.......Obama signs a EO basically using Presidential authority in prioritizing deportations of illegals based off a bill that was being discussed in Congress, something that previous Presidents have done since Reagan.....and that's illegal?!
Trump signs an EO basically claiming he can decide who gets funding and who doesn't which isn't within Presidential authority based off a bill that's currently being discussed in Congress.....and that's legal?!
Now tell me again how it's only Obama's policies that you disagree with!....../s
Obama was unable to do what he wanted with immigration, therefore he used his executive powers to promote a social change - acceptance of the "undocumented." All of which can be brushed aside by the next President.
Trump signs an EO basically claiming he can decide who gets funding and who doesn't which isn't within Presidential authority based off a bill that's currently being discussed in Congress.
Nope, Trump is in the same boat as Obama - he needs legislation. I only hope the congress will act to restore the rule of law.
But it was still legal and under his authority
The rule of law states immigration is regulated and enforced at the federal level, the rule of law goes by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution preserves states authority and bars the federal government from compelling states to enforce or administer federal laws……so if the law has said that and has always says that what rule of law are you hoping they restore, because the Constitution is clear.
Obama signs a EO (that granted benefits. (onlycongress can do that)
Trump signs an EO ( that stops discretionary funding (the president can do that)
once this gets to the supreme court they will explain it all again.
Cheers
Umm...the EO is covered under Presidential discretion for immigration......
Wrong again! Trump signed an EO the stops funding discretionally...big difference! And NOT his job!
And what makes you think this will actually make it to the SCOTUS?!.....Oh! I see you think that's Trump's personal court so they HAVE to! Newsflash Congress has already tried to make a law like Trump's EO (where do you think he got the idea?) and it's stalled......so if Obama's EO is illegal why isn't Trump's
LOL permanently? not a chance of that.
it will go to the supreme court and they will rule otherwise... count on that.