Richmond loses challenge against Trump.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/judge-rules-california-town-cant-challenge-trumps-order-on-sanctuary-
cities/article/2632233
https://www.google.com/amp/s/lawnewz.com/high-profile/obama-appointed-judge-sides-with-trump-slaps-down-sanctuary-city-wanting-to-stop-his-immigration-order/amp/
"U.S. District Judge William Orrick, appointed by President Barack Obama, gave a judicial slap down to the City of Richmond, California in their attempt to stop the Trump administration from enforcing an executive order cracking down on sanctuary cities."
Court documents in this link:
https://twitter.com/big_cases/status/899779069503565825
John, your post is a bit of an overreach. It's true that the Judge dismissed Richmond's lawsuit to invalidate the Executive Order penalizing sanctuary cities, but the basis of the ruling appears to be lack of standing based on the fact that Richmond is not a sanctuary city. Judge Orrick has previously ruled on behalf of San Francisco and Santa Clara that the order is unconstitutional because spending power is vested in Congress, not the Presidency. There is the question of some law enforcement grants over which Congress has given the the President some discretion, and San Francisco, Chicago, and other cities are challenging whether the discretion allows for punitive measures unrelated to the purpose of the funding is lawful.
ReplyDeleteThere have been several rulings against the Trump administration on this. One problem is that the Executive Order itself fails to define "sanctuary city." There are a number of non-cooperation-with-ICE ordinances which have simply avoided using the word "sanctuary."
At least one Judge has also ruled on the basis of the 10th Amendment which prohibits the federal government from mandating local law enforcement participate in federal law enforcement.
Note at the end of his decision Judge Orrick suggested that Richmond involve itself by filing amicus briefs in the other lawsuits. But I have to agree with the ruling - until Richmond actually passes a law declaring itself a sanctuary city and the federal government attempts to punish the city for it, it's premature.
Eric, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Rulings are interpreted subjectively. While you are correct that the Judge ruled that Richmond did not have standing to bring this lawsuit, the legal issue is not settled with one ruling. This was a victory for Trump but more importantly, those, like you that are anti Trump and do not acknowledge that there have always been laws regarding immigration. People don't get to selectively chose what law they follow. Most media and most liberals and progressives think all immigrants are the same and champion for illegal immigrants. Legal and illegal is not the same. Trump is just saying what most media wont report on, what Democrats spin, what some RINOS are afraid to say but what is fact and how many people feel. What about those immigrants that followed the law? Seems that they have been forgotten in the dialogue.
DeleteWhether they followed the law is academic to me. 11 to 13 million are here illegally. We can't deport them, and any attempt to do so is going to hurt communities and destroy families.
DeleteAs to whether the ruling was a "victory" for Trump, I guess technically so. You do have to be a sanctuary city before you can file a lawsuit against punishment for being a sanctuary city. That will set a precedent against all non-sanctuary cities who want to file such a lawsuit.
The argument for sanctuary cities and Fed funding now boils down to a 10th Amendment argument. That'll work fine in the appellate courts but I suspect will struggle at the high court. (e.g. South Dakota vs. Dole).
ReplyDeleteNot just the 10th Amendment, though that is involved. But Article 1, Section 8 which vests spending power on Congress, not the President. So far the only rulings on the Constitutionality of the Executive Order state that he does not have the power to deprive localities of funds. The current lawsuits pertain to discretionary funds.
Delete