Trump’s ‘sanctuary city’ order blocked by federal judge in San Francisco

In Nation
It's only fair to share...Email this to someone
Print this page

A federal judge in San Francisco dealt the Trump administration another legal blow Tuesday, temporarily halting President Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from cities and towns that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities.

U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick imposed a nationwide injunction against Trump’s Jan. 25 executive order on so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions and said lawsuits by the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County challenging the order were likely to succeed.

Orrick pointed to discrepancies in the administration’s interpretation of the executive order, which authorized the attorney general to withhold grant money from jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with immigration officials on deportations and other enforcement actions.

In court, the government’s lawyers suggested cities and towns were overreacting to the order because federal officials have not yet defined sanctuary cities or moved to withhold funding from them. But on television and in news conferences, the judge pointed out, the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have threatened to sanction such jurisdictions.

“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 threat of the Order and the uncertainty it is causing impermissibly interferes with the Counties’ ability to operate, to provide key services, to plan for the future, and to budget.”

(Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

Trump says sanctuary cities put Americans at risk by refusing to hold immigrants who have been arrested or convicted of serious crimes until immigrations agents can take them into custody and deport them.

Sanctuary cities’ officials counter that they do not have the legal authority to hold a person after a judge in a criminal case has ordered that person released. Holding people on immigration offenses is generally a civil process, rather than a criminal one.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Justice Department lawyers are reviewing legal options. “It’s the Ninth Circuit going bananas,” he told reporters Tuesday evening. “The idea that an agency can’t put in some reasonable restriction on how some of these monies are spent is going to be overturned eventually, and we’ll win at the Supreme Court level at some point.”

The Justice Department said it would essentially continue business as usual.

The agency noted that Orrick’s ruling upheld the government’s previously existing ability to withhold grant money that is awarded with immigration-related conditions.

His decision largely blocked the administration from doing things its lawyers had said in court it would not do, such as strip health-care funding from cities and towns.

But the American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups said the injunction offered a clear warning that Trump’s order — the third issued by the president to be blocked, at least partially, in federal court — is illegal.

How sanctuary cities work, and how Trump’s executive order might affect them

“Once again, the courts have spoken to defend tolerance, diversity and inclusion from the illegal threats of the Trump administration,” said ACLU National Political Director Faiz Shakir in a statement. “Once again, Trump has overreached and lost.”

San Francisco Mayor Edwin M. Lee (D) applauded Orrick’s ruling, saying his jurisdiction “is and will remain a Sanctuary City.”

“If the federal government believes there is a need to detain a serious criminal, they can obtain a criminal warrant, which we will honor, as we always have,” Lee said.

Orrick’s ruling came hours after Sessions met with the U.S. Conference of Mayors and informed local officials that they had to communicate with federal immigration officials under federal law.

In a statement, the group hailed the ruling.

“The Conference has long opposed the withholding of funds from so-called ‘sanctuary cities,’ which, of course, is a political term not a legal one,” said Tom Cochran, executive director of the conference.

Matt Zapotosky and Philip Rucker contributed to this report.

Mobile Sliding Menu