Judge blocks Oramgutans order

Judge blocks Trump’s order on sanctuary cities

By JOSH GERSTEIN

A federal judge has blocked a directive from President Donald Trump seeking to deny federal funding to so-called "sanctuary cities" and other localities that decline to cooperate in enforcement of federal immigration laws.

San Francisco-based U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction Tuesday barring federal officials nationwide from carrying out the portion of a Jan. 25 Trump executive order aimed at cutting off grants to local governments that won't provide assistance to federal authorities in locating and detaining undocumented immigrants.

Orrick cited public comments from Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions in concluding that the order appeared intended to sweep more broadly than allowed by federal law. The judge, an Obama appointee, called "not legally plausible" the Justice Department's arguments that Trump was simply trying to secure compliance with current law.

"If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments," Orrick wrote. "The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds."

The ruling was another high-profile blow to Trump's efforts to use executive orders to carry out major policy moves— a drive his staff is highlighting as he approaches the 100-days-in-office mark.

Trump took to Twitter early Wednesday, appearing to vow an appeal. He also blasted the sanctuary cities decision as part of a series of wayward judicial actions, including rulings that blocked his efforts to bar visitors and immigrants from several majority-Muslim countries.

"First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!" Trump wrote. "Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the 'ban' case and now the 'sanctuary' case is brought in .....the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this 'judge shopping!' Messy system."

District court judges are not commonly referred to as judges of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, although they sit within that circuit, which covers nine western states. The appeals court has yet to rule on Trump's sanctuary cities order.

The key parts of Trump's initial travel ban order—decried by critics as a "Muslim ban"—were blocked in February by a Seattle-based judge. Later that month, a three-judge 9th Circuit panel unanimously declined to allow Trump to immediately reinstate the ban.

Rather than seeing that appeal through or taking the issue to the Supreme Court, Trump chose to redraft the order. Last month, a judge in Hawaii blocked the core of the revised order.

However, Trump was inaccurate to suggest that court challenges were only brought in the 9th Circuit and only judges located in that region have questioned the legality of his actions. Portions of the initial travel ban were also blocked by judges in Boston, New York and Detroit. And the visa-ban part of Trump's revised travel directive was also blocked by a judge in Maryland.

Trump's Twitter assault on the sanctuary cities ruling was in line with a harsh statement the White House issued about seven hours after Orrick's decision, but somewhat out of sync with a Justice Department statement earlier Tuesday downplaying the impact of the judge's order.

"Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation," the White House said in the statement, which was unusually attributed to no individual but solely to the "Office of the Press Secretary."

"Once again, a single district judge — this time in San Francisco — has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father's arms," the statement said.

The Justice Department statement emphasized that the judge did not block the federal government from enforcing federal law as it now stands.

"The Court upheld the ‘Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373,' " Justice spokesman Ian Prior said, referring to a provision in federal law that bars localities from policies that impede exchange of information with the federal government.

"The Department of Justice." Prior added, "previously stated to the Court, and reiterates now, that it will follow the law with respect to regulation of sanctuary jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Department will continue to enforce existing grant conditions and will continue to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373. Further, the order does not purport to enjoin the Department’s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions."

Despite the sweeping denunciation from Trump and the White House, Orrick maintained that his new injunction may not block much or any of what the Trump administration claimed in court it was actually trying to do through the portion of the Jan. 25 order targeting sanctuary cities. If all Trump wanted to do was cut off Justice Department grants to localities that are out of compliance with the law, he can still do that, the judge observed.

"This injunction does nothing more than implement the effect of the Government's flawed interpretation of the Order," Orrick wrote.

Orrick acted on lawsuits brought by the City of San Francisco and nearby Santa Clara County. At least three other suits are pending over the same sanctuary city language in Trump's immigration-enforcement executive order. Since the judge's injunction applies nationwide, it could moot those other suits for the time being.

The judge concluded that the California localities were correct to be concerned that their funding was in jeopardy and that the grants affected might be more than just the few the Justice Department said were covered by Trump's order.

"Although Government counsel has represented that the Order will be implemented consistent with law, this assurance is undermined by Section 9(a)’s clearly unconstitutional directives. Further, through public statements, the President and Attorney General have appeared to endorse the broadest reading of the Order," Orrick added.

"Is the Order merely a rhetorical device, as counsel suggested at the hearing, or a 'weapon' to defund the Counties and those who have implemented a different law enforcement strategy than the Government currently believes is desirable? The result of this schizophrenic approach to the Order is that the Counties’ worst fears are not allayed and the Counties reasonably fear enforcement under the Order," the judge wrote.

The two Democrats in California's Senate delegation hailed the ruling, while other senators were divided on it. Most senators interviewed near the Senate chamber Tuesday afternoon said they had not seen the judge's decision and were just learning of it from news reports or from reporters.

"It’s fantastic, I’m jumping up and down. Put five exclamation points after what I said," California Sen. Kamala Harris said, predicting that the injunction will be upheld if appealed.

"I think this is highlighting the importance of an independent judiciary, and you know, the law is the law. And so, thumbs up. All of the thumbs up," she added.

"Well, that’s good, as a Californian, that’s good," Sen. Dianne Feinstein said when told of the decision.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said cities should not be undermining federal law.

"There is only one federal government. Read the Constitution," McCain said, adding that he had not read the court decision. "You can’t pass laws in a town or a city that violates federal laws. If you started doing that, then we would have anarchy in this country. That’s a no-brainer."

Technically, the judge's order does not apply to Trump, but only to federal agencies and other executive branch officials. Orrick said injunctions against the president personally are not favored by the courts. He also noted that Trump had no apparent role in carrying out his executive order.