Judge blocks Trump bid to halt federal funding for sanctuary cities

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘A federal judge in California issued an injunction Thursday blocking President Donald Trump's efforts to halt federal funds from going to several cities and counties considered sanctuary jurisdictions.

“The challenged sections in the 2025 Executive Orders and the Bondi Directive that order executive agencies to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funding apportioned to localities by Congress, violate the Constitution’s separation of powers principles and the Spending Clause,” U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in his ruling.

“They also violate the Fifth Amendment to the extent they are unconstitutionally vague and violate due process,” while Trump's orders "violate the Tenth Amendment because they impose coercive condition intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices and law."’

Judge blocks Trump bid to halt federal funding for sanctuary cities

A federal judge issued an injunction Thursday blocking President Donald Trump's efforts to halt federal funds from going to sanctuary jurisdictions.

www.yahoo.com

Very good.

There’s no such thing as a ‘sanctuary’ city.

State and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal law – including immigration law.

It is perfectly lawful and Constitutional for local jurisdictions to elect to not use limited resources to detain undocumented immigrants.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I know you're enjoying that. You just love it when illegals come to our cities and commit crimes and atrocities without any fear of reprisal, because hey, compassion and all that, right?

You miserable sack of human filth. No wonder you gravitate toward the dregs of society.

 

[TemplarKormac]

If a city passes laws that directly subvert federal immigration law, it violates the supremacy clause. The Tenth Amendment only applies to powers not delegated to the government, which are given to the states until Congress acts to give the government the power.

The power to regulate immigration is solely the power of the Federal government, and not for a city or state to subvert.

Trump will win on appeal to SCOTUS.

 

[TemplarKormac]

State and local jurisdictions cannot be compelled to enforce Federal law – including immigration law.

Uh yes they can. If they are aiding and abetting in a violation of federal law, that makes them complicit in a crime. One could say conspiracy.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Arizona v. United States establishes that the Federal government alone has the power to enforce immigration law and that states and municipalities cannot take that power for themselves, for better or worse.

 

[Concerned American]

It is perfectly lawful and Constitutional for local jurisdictions to elect to not use limited resources to detain undocumented immigrants.

It is unlawful to obstruct a federal law enforcement officer in the performance of his duty. Anyone doing so, is guilty of aiding, abetting and obstruction. Arrests of these obstructionists is sure to be the final straw.

 

[Care4all]

Arizona v. United States establishes that the Federal government alone has the power to enforce immigration law and that states and municipalities cannot take that power for themselves, for better or worse.

The federal govt can not force the local governments (through threat of withholding federal funds in this case) to do their own federal job of handling U.S. immigration....at least not without paying them to assist them....basically....because local and state paid taxes are needed and spent by their own legislature for their own citizens and tax payers, from my understanding of it...

 

[TemplarKormac]

The federal govt can not force the local governments (through threat of withholding federal funds in this case) to do their own federal job of handling U.S. immigration

Actually, it's government money, and as such, the government can do what it sees fit with it, even if that means compelling action to facilitate adherence to constitutionally sound law, in this case, our immigration laws.

 

[Care4all]

Actually, it's government money, and as such, the government can do what it sees fit with it, even if that means compelling action to facilitate adherence to constitutionally sound law, in this case, our immigration laws.

No it can't! If it is not in the legislation itself for the appropriation of the funding....this has been settled in court previously...

So if funding is for ...say...school lunches....the bill that passed would have to say in the bill something like:

this is the qualification requirements for federal funding on school lunches, but if the locality does not assist the federal government's demands on immigration, the school lunch funding can be held back....

Holding back the money for whatever reason ....would have to be in the bill as a parameter for receiving the school lunch money.

 

[excalibur]

...

There’s no such thing as a ‘sanctuary’ city.

Yes, they call themselves sanctuary cities, and sanctuary states.

It is a violation of Federal law to harbor illegal aliens. They are usurping the Constitutions Supremacy Clause in Article VI.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.​