Trump lashes out at wrong court after his effort to defund sanctuary cities is struck down

Esther Yu-Hsi Lee

Esther Yu-Hsi Lee Immigration Reporter, Think Progress

The morning after a federal judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempts to deny federal funding to so-called “sanctuary cities,” President Trump threatened to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings,” Trump wrote as the first of a three-part Twitter rant Wednesday morning. “See you in the Supreme Court!”

Trump said that the Ninth Circuit — where he presumed the ruling was issued — has a “terrible record of being overturned.” But Judge William Orrick — a district court judge based in San Francisco who issued Tuesday’s injunction — does not sit on the Ninth Circuit, which is an appeals court. As Politico pointed out, the Ninth Circuit will be the next court that will hear the case if the Trump administration chooses to appeal the decision.

Orrick’s ruling on Tuesday blocked key parts of Trump’s executive order which would pull federal funding from so-called “sanctuary cities,” or localities where local law enforcement can choose to limit cooperation with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agency by not turning over suspected undocumented immigrants. As it stands, police department manuals in some current sanctuary localities still suggest officers establish whether people are in the country without authorization, which could encourage immigration enforcement.

In his ruling, Orrick argued that taking federal funding away from cities and counties like Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco, which challenged the law by not cooperating with federal authorities, could be unconstitutional. He pointed out that these localities would face “immediate irreparable harm” in part because federal grants that “support core services in their jurisdictions” could be cut off.

Late Tuesday night, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer released a statement attacking the decision as an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” Spicer also decried the city of San Francisco as a place that ignores federal immigration law and puts the “well-being of criminal aliens before the safety” of U.S. citizens.

“San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands,” Spicer said in his statement. “This San Francisco judge’s erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk.”

U.S. Department of Justice spokesperson Ian Prior said in a statement that Orrick’s ruling didn’t prevent the federal government from enforcing rules to some grants in localities that do not cooperate with federal immigration officials.

“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,” Prior said.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus promised the administration would appeal.

“Again it’s the Ninth Circuit going bananas,” Priebus, who also mistook Orrick for a Ninth Circuit judge, said Tuesday. “It’s clear forum-shopping that’s going on. …We will win at the Supreme Court level.”

Trump previously slammed the Ninth Circuit when it upheld a lower court’s temporary injunction blocking his executive order to prevent immigrants from some Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

***

Reposted from Think Progress.

Esther Yu-Hsi Lee is an Immigration Reporter/Blogger for ThinkProgress. She received her B.A. in Psychology and Middle East Studies and a M.A. in Psychology from New York University. A Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) beneficiary, Esther is passionate about immigration issues from all sides of the debate. She is originally from Los Angeles, CA.

Posted In: Allied Approaches

Union Matters

An Invitation to Sunny Miami. What Could Be Bad?

Sam Pizzigati

Sam Pizzigati Editor, Too Much online magazine

If a billionaire “invites” you somewhere, you’d better go. Or be prepared to suffer the consequences. This past May, hedge fund kingpin Carl Icahn announced in a letter to his New York-based staff of about 50 that he would be moving his business operations to Florida. But the 83-year-old Icahn assured his staffers they had no reason to worry: “My employees have always been very important to the company, so I’d like to invite you all to join me in Miami.” Those who go south, his letter added, would get a $50,000 relocation benefit “once you have established your permanent residence in Florida.” Those who stay put, the letter continued, can file for state unemployment benefits, a $450 weekly maximum that “you can receive for a total of 26 weeks.” What about severance from Icahn Enterprises? The New York Post reported last week that the two dozen employees who have chosen not to uproot their families and follow Icahn to Florida “will be let go without any severance” when the billionaire shutters his New York offices this coming March. Bloomberg currently puts Carl Icahn’s net worth at $20.5 billion.

***

More ...

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon

Health Care Should Not Be A Bargaining Weapon