Judge blocks Trump's order on sanctuary cities

[SteveRogers]

This is a total overreach .



Where in the  constitution does it say that cities are entitled to fedreal money . I wanna know how the courts have a power to block this and saying its bad policy is not a reason . The legislative branch's job is to repeal bad policy the courts job is to tell whether any action is constitutional or not .

It's not constitutional for the federal branch to tell a municipality how to spend it's money at the threat of holding back money already approved by the legislative branch for purposes completely unrelated to the issue the executive branch is requiring.

By the way, Sanctuary cities are not violating any laws. They are living within their constitutional duties.

They are violating the law , only the Feds have the power to enforce immigration laws and that means the states and cities must comply with them on it .

2nd cities aren't entitled to fedreal money

Can you please identify the actual the law that you think these cities are violating? And you're right, the Constitution does give the federal government sole authority to establish and enforce immigration law. The Constitution also prohibits the federal government from commandeering state and local authorities to enforce those laws. This is a long settled matter of Constitutional law.

I say withholding information from the Feds is usurping that authority

Okay, so you don't actually know of any law these cities are violating. Glad we could clear that up..

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Trump 'absolutely' considering breaking up the 9th Circuit court

Dictatorship, here we come.

[The_Doctor]

Sanctuary cities shouldn't be allowed to get away with legally refusing to help enforce federal law ... at the least, the government should disincentivize them. You are correct, Trump doesn't get to pick and choose which laws to enforce, and I agree, he needs a directive from Congress to do this. I don't think, upon review, he has the statutory authority to do this (impound funds to local governments) without Congress doing something authorizing him.

I dissent that it would be a bad law. After all, if sanctuary cities exist ... it makes our immigration law a mockery and suggests they can be suborned. This is obviously a dangerous precedent to set, especially given the Constitution's clear directive about the government setting and enforcing immigration law.

Even if Congress were to pass a bill echoing the language of Trump's executive order, there would still be a couple Constitutional hurdles in play. Congress could pass a law expressly conditioning law enforcement grants on compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 1373, sure, no problem. But the language of Trump's EO sweeps broader than that. Trumps EO states: "The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law." What is a policy that "hinders" the enforcement of federal law? Well, the EO doesn't define it, and so the judge concludes that this is likely to be an unconstitutionally vague provision. But ultimately the debate over sanctuary cities comes down to whether cities should be complying with ICE detainer requests, and that's presumably the condition Congress would be seeking if it passed such a law. So what's the Constitutional problem with that? Well, the problem is that several courts have already concluded that ICE detainer requests are unconstitutional. And if ICE detainer requests are unconstitutional, then conditioning funding on compliance with them would likewise be unconstitutional.

It isn't a huge problem. What Congress can do is cut off funding to sanctuary cities if they refuse to turn over the citizenship status of people within its borders to the federal government or refuse to maintain records (which they could share) and Trump would be able to send ICE agents to deport the illegal migrants.

I would assume that satisfies a number of legal issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Trump 'absolutely' considering breaking up the 9th Circuit court

Dictatorship, here we come.

As if breaking up the 9th Circuit would solve Trump's problems.  If anything, it would make them worse if there were fewer states in the Circuit that California is in,

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Perhaps instead of complaining about it, Trump should work on filling the vacancies with good nominees.

[pbrower2a]

This seems like judicial activism gone too far, but I admittedly am not a lawyer. Is it normal for public comments to be factored into legal cases in this way? I don't recall that ever being brought up before the Trump administration.

States' rights.

[MasterJedi]

This seems like judicial activism gone too far, but I admittedly am not a lawyer. Is it normal for public comments to be factored into legal cases in this way? I don't recall that ever being brought up before the Trump administration.

States' rights.

Nah, it's only States' Rights and local control if you do what I like for conservatives. If you don't do what I like and I have full federal control we will mandate what you can and can't do, until we are no longer in power, then States' Rights and local control again.