Once again President Trump’s plans to keep this country safe have been thwarted by federal courts. When President Trump wanted to find a way to ensure that “sanctuary cities” would be forced to follow federal laws by cutting off federal funding, a court put a stop to it. Ensuring that sanctuary cities can continue to harbor dangerous illegal immigrants.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the temporary ruling as the lawsuit regarding sanctuary cities has yet to make its way through court.
At least two California cities are suing over Trump’s measure to defund them as sanctuary cities.
“The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding,’ Orrick said. ‘And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.”
The Daily Mail reports:
‘It’s not like it’s just some small amount of money,’ John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick – an Obama-era appointee to the federal bench – at the April 14 hearing.
Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly.
The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status, he said.
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.
Republican President Donald Trump was using a ‘bully pulpit’ to ‘encourage communities and states to comply with the law,’ Readler said.
In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order ‘by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing.’
‘The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding,’ Orrick said. ‘And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.’
He said: ‘Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.’