San Francisco Judge Blocks Trump’s Sanctuary City Order

Sanctuary cityU.S. District Court Judge William Orrick III issued a permanent injunction Monday against President Donald Trump’s executive order directing that federal funds be withheld from “sanctuary city” jurisdictions.

The original order, issued January 25, aimed to “Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenged the order, which Orrick blockedtemporarily in April on the grounds that it was too broad and infringed on the powers of the legislative branch to control federal spending.

In response, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memorandum clarifying the Department of Justice’s interpretation of the order, stipulating that the federal funds to be withheld would be limited to discretionary grants from the department to local law enforcement authorities.

But the judge said in July that memorandum was not enough to stop other agencies from interpreting the executive order in a broader sense, and that the memorandum could easily be withdrawn.

In his ruling on Monday, Judge Orrick said:

[E]ven if the President had spending powers, the Executive Order would clearly exceed them and violate the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition against commandeering local jurisdictions. It is so vague and standardless that it violates the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and is void for vagueness. And because it seeks to deprive local jurisdictions of congressionally allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard, it violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.

The Trump administration has already appealed Orrick’s original, temporary order to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Congress could also enforce President Trump’s policy simply by enacting legislation to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities — assuming Orrick’s 10th Amendment concerns about commandeering are overcome.

Proponents of sanctuary cities celebrated Monday’s ruling, while opponents remain incredulous that any part of the United States could defy federal immigration law under the protection of the courts.

A spokesperson for the Department of Justice told Breitbart News: “The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law. The Justice Department will vindicate the President’s lawful authority to direct the executive branch.”

Joel B. Pollak is Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He was named one of the “most influential” people in news media in 2016. He is the co-author of How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, is available from Regnery. Follow him on Twitter at @joelpollak.

Ian Mason contributed to this story.

This article was originally published by Breitbart.com/California

Comments

  1. Only brain dead libturd judges from frisco do crap like this!! Obstruct and stop LAWFUL enforcement of our laws by vacuum minded liberals! When is the President going to be able to implement his agenda for fixing America, you know the one we ELECTED him to do!!??

  2. It is time for the Justice Department to override assholes like Orrick. Just don’t send the money!! I don’t understand how a local judge that was shopped for because of his liberal leanings can override the US Government on a matter such as this.

  3. Everett Haggin says

    Why does President Trump continue to listen and follow these low-life, communist, anti-constitutional judges?? It is a FEDERAL matter, not a state matter and if the Supreme Court doesn’t interject, fine. Oscumbag Barry Hussein Soetoro had no problem ignoring and disrespecting judges, or any other authority. Trump is within the law and should put these commie judges in prison for sedition and treason!!!!!!

  4. Not gonna happen –these people will run for the hills when the troops come in and throw them out–taxpayers will demand Trump to follow through

  5. The line between the three branches of government continues to be eroded, and don’t think for one second Congress is upset over this. Pols LOVE for unelected judges to do the dirty work so they don’t have to. The only issue is how far will this go? Judges deciding who can be excluded from military service? Already happened. Now they can evidently determine spending bills, too. Libs like it today, but it can quickly go the other direction.

  6. Does anyone wonder why a) Trump was elected, and b) why it is important that he be allowed a 2nd term?

    Just in judge appointees it is absolutely necessary to have constructionists in office. Then there is the undoing of the embedded and obstructionists left over from decades of Socialist planning.

    The issue of separation of powers has to be upheld.

  7. retiredxlr8r says

    I’m sorry, but odds are it was a purely partisan decision.
    Trump should just ignore this decision. This state of socialist want to ignore the Federal Government on an issue that is entirely within the purview of the Federal Government Constitutionally. States have NO authority over borders of the United States and immigration. So, Trump should just thumb his nose at them. Matter of fact, maybe Trump should shut down, lock them up, all the borders they are responsible for in California, i.e., with Mexico and with the Pacific Ocean!

  8. Arrest the traitorous POS and throw him in jail. Getting tired of these holier than thou commie judges.

  9. vistacharlie says

    Another example of why the 9th circuit court of appeals should be broken up and the existing judges fired. Trump does have the capability to select judges for federal courts and he really needs to start appointing more conservative judges to better balance the court system. the ninth has a record of having many of it’s decisions overturned by the supreme court. this judge is in error because trumps decision is administrative and provides overview. congress can allocate money but it is up to the executive branch to administer funding. if a police department is violating laws and procedure it is trumps duty to withold support.

  10. “Judge Orrick issued a political ruling, not a legal ruling and that means he is executing judicial duties through bad conduct; political conduct. He exists on the bench during “bad behavior.”
    The US Constitution states, in Article III, Section 1:
    “…The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour…”
    Orrick is executing “bad behavior” and, therefore, is vulnerable to impeachment from the federal bench. To that end, even SCOTUS justices are vulnerable to impeachment if they execute “bad behavior.”
    It would seem that there is a remedy to judicial activism in the federal judiciary: Impeachment. So, why isn’t the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch pursuing removal of this activist?”

    Credit: Undergroundusa.com

    • “…why isn’t the Republican-controlled Legislative Branch pursuing removal of this activist?”
      Can you spell “political cowardice”?

  11. The founding father’s fears that the judiciary branch of government could end up being a “superpower” are coming true.

  12. Well once again Treason committed by an appointed official is going to be ignored . This new act of any liberal judge that does not agree with the laws of the the land can just make up their own laws needs to be punished to the limits the law will allow and I mean real law not liberal , communist dribble.
    How can both our elected and appointed officials break their oaths of office, ignore the will of the people ( American citizens ), Install their own will in place of our constitution and still breath the sweet air of freedom. They should be awaiting execution for high treason.

  13. The ball is in the President’s court. This won’t end well for our state.

  14. The 9th-Circuit, both its appellate and trial bench, is a swamp that needs to be drained, with prejudice.

Speak Your Mind

*