Judge rules Trump administration can withhold grant from California over ‘sanctuary’ concerns


#1

SAN FRANCISCO — The Trump administration will not immediately have to award California a grant being withheld over concerns the state is a sanctuary for people in the country illegally, a federal judge said Monday.
The amount of money at issue – $1 million – was relatively small and was at this point only delayed, not denied, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said. While he rejected the state’s request for a preliminary injunction to turn over the money, he also rejected a request by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss California’s lawsuit.
The judge said the suit raised “weighty and novel constitutional issues” that would benefit from additional argument.
Many cities in the U.S., and some states, have implemented so-called sanctuary laws encouraging law enforcement to focus resources on local crime rather than detaining people suspected of being in the country illegally. Defenders of the practices say they improve public safety by promoting trust among law enforcement and immigrant communities and reserve scarce police resources for urgent crime-fighting needs.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions has blamed “sanctuary city” policies for crime and gang violence. In July, Sessions announced that cities and states could only receive Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance grants if they allow federal immigration officials access to detention facilities and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.
Cities and states were also required to certify that they complied with a particular federal immigration law. The Trump administration says that law requires that California not restrict officials from sharing information regarding immigration status with federal immigration officers, including information regarding a person’s date of release from state custody and home address.

A federal judge in Chicago last year blocked the advance notice and access requirements in a ruling that applied nationwide. But U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber said the DOJ could require Byrne Memorial grant recipients to certify compliance with the federal immigration law at issue.
An email to the California attorney general’s office was not immediately returned.


#2

WOW, that is great news ! :grin: Finally a judge that doesn’t reward officials for BREAKING THE LAW !!!


#3

Don’t get too excited. Someone somewhere will appeal it and it will be stopped in it’s tracks because of racism and because Trump asked for it.


#4

What type of judge would side with those breaking the LAW ???
The clean hands doctrine is a rule of law that someone bringing a lawsuit or motion and asking the court for equitable relief must be innocent of wrongdoing or unfair conduct relating to the subject matter of his/her claim. It is an affirmative defense that the defendant may claim the plaintiff has unclean hands.


#5

Mostly the 9th District Court of Appeals in Commiefornia.


#6

Trump has no control over California.


#7

He does when California signals for its hordes of illegals to run to their gopher holes when ICE comes to town. Once I got a ticket for flashing my lights to warn drivers of a speed trap… I signaled an unmarked car… Its called obstruction of justice more specifically impeding law enforcement in the execution of their lawful duties…


#8

A million dollars in California’s economy…


#9

If its appealed it will go to the SCOTUS for a final ruling.


#10

California doesn’t care about Washington’s one million dollars, they shit that out once a minute.


#11

I would like to see as much pain as possible inflicted on the state of California. At this point the only people who live there are the homeless and illegals. The majority of the jobs in California are going to be automated anyway, especially the ones that illegals have. The Liberals in California will have a real problem on their hands when that happens.


#12

By becoming a country, Illegalfornia would have as many illegals as they want at their own expense. I would hope there wouldn’t be any US foreign aid or travel .


#13

Speaking of anti American


#14

Lol, it’s that kind of hyperbole that makes the right mute.


#15

States don’t have to enforce federal law, but they can’t wilfully obstruct it.


#16

California has been doing a lot of it. I thought you guys were the States rights proponents and the party of small government and all.


#17

We’re not states rights… part of the time. And we have the 14th amendment that is rather clear about federal law trumping state law which means obstruction becomes a federal crime… they all agreed to it with the 14th amendment (some grudgingly admittedly) Besides those who are not states rights fans (all the time) are generally the same people who find the constitution to be a plaything to bend and mould like a piece of never hardening clay… but never seem to have the popular backing to amend it properly.


#18

Exactly. I personally even believe that Sanctuary City polices obstruct federal law. I know cities argue that they don’t want to be a part of the federal law enforcement process…but warning illegals ahead of time so they can avoid arrest is clearly preventing the federal government from enforcing federal immigration law. When it come to awarding federal money to sanctuary cities, they aren’t entitiled to that money. The federal government doesn’t have to give it to them.


#19

All appropriations start in the HOR.