[ad_1]
A federal judge in California said Thursday that the Trump administration barred or conditioned the use of federal funds to the use of “sanctuary” jurisdiction, and that some of President Trump’s executive orders are unconstitutional.
US District Judge William Ollick has issued an injunction that San Francisco is sought, and more than a dozen other municipalities limiting cooperation with federal immigration efforts.
Orick wrote that the accused are “prohibited directly or indirectly to act to withhold, freeze or condition federal funds,” and the administration must provide written notice of his orders to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.
One executive order issued by Trump will direct Atty. General Pam Bondi and Secretary of Homeland Security Christy Noem will withhold federal money from the sanctuary jurisdiction. The second order directs all federal agencies to ensure that payments to state and local governments “protect “sanctuary” policies from deportation, which seek to expel so-called “sanctuary” policies.
At a hearing Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was too early for judges to grant an injunction if the government fails to withhold certain amounts or set conditions for certain grants.
But Orik, who was appointed President Obama, said this was what government lawyers alleged during Trump’s first term when Republicans issued similar orders.
“Their fear of well-founded enforcement is even stronger than in 2017,” Orick wrote, citing orders from Justice Department lawsuits filed against Bondi, other federal agencies, and Chicago and New York.
San Francisco successfully completed the Trump order in 2017, and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that the president outweighed his powers when he signed an executive order threatening to cut funds for “sanctuary cities.”
The plaintiff was satisfied with the judge’s order.
“As we continue to see the enormous federal overreach, the court’s ruling asserts that local governments can serve their mission and maintain trust with the communities they care for,” Santa Clara County lawyer Tony Lopresty said in a statement.
It is unclear whether federal agencies will comply with the order. On Thursday, U.S. Transport Secretary Sean Duffy issued a reminder to recipients of federal transport funds who are expected to comply with federal law, including immigration enforcement and potential consequences.
The department did not immediately respond to emails seeking comment.
Although there is no strict definition of sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, the term generally describes limited cooperation between immigration and customs enforcement. ICE has enforced national immigration laws, but it seeks state and local support in asking federal authorities for immigrants to be deported and warning federal officers not to retain them until detained.
Leaders of the sanctuary jurisdiction say their communities are safer because they feel that migrants can communicate with local police without fear of deportation. It’s also a way for local governments to concentrate their dollars on crime locally, they say.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County are in lawsuits, as well as Santa Clara County, including the third plaintiff, San Jose, as well as 13 plaintiffs, including Seattle, King County and Washington. Portland, Oregon. Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. New Haven, Connecticut. Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Har writes for the Associated Press.
[ad_2]Source link
