A federal judge in California prohibited the Trump administration from refusing or conditioning the use of federal funds to the jurisdictions of “sanctuary”, affirming that parties of the executive orders of President Trump were unconstitutional.
The American district judge William Orrick published the injunction requested by San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities which limit cooperation with federal immigration efforts.
Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “to take any measure directly or indirectly to retain, freeze or condition the federal funds” and the administration must provide a written opinion of its order to all the federal departments and agencies by Monday.
An executive decree issued by Trump directs Atty. General Pam Bondi and internal security secretary Kristi Noem to retain the federal money of the sanctuary courts. The second ordinance orders each federal agency to ensure that payments to the governments of states and premises do not “reconfine the so -called” sanctuary “policies who seek to protect illegal foreigners from expulsion”.
During a hearing on Wednesday, lawyers from the Ministry of Justice argued that it was far too early for the judge to grant an injunction when the government had taken no measures to retain specific amounts or to expose conditions on specific subsidies.
But Orrick, who was appointed by President Obama, said that it was essentially what government lawyers supported in Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.
“Their well -founded fear of the application is even stronger than it was in 2017,” wrote Orrick, citing executive decrees as well as the Bondi directives, other federal organizations and the Ministry of Justice filed against Chicago and New York.
San Francisco successfully challenged the 2017 Trump prescription and the 9th Circuit Court of American Appeals agreed with the lower court that the president has exceeded his authority when he signed a decree threatening to reduce the funding of “sanctuary cities”.
The applicants were satisfied with the judge’s order.
“At a time when we continue to see a huge federal surpassing, the court’s decision affirms that local governments can serve their mission and maintain confidence with the communities they are dealing with,” said Tony Lopresti, lawyer for the County of Santa Clara, in a statement.
It is not known whether federal agencies will respect the order. On Thursday, the United States US transport secretary, Sean Duffy, reminded the beneficiaries of federal transport funding that they should respect federal law, including the application of immigration, or are faced with potential consequences.
The ministry did not immediately respond to an email asking for comments.
There is no strict definition for sanctuary policies or sanctuary cities, but the terms generally describe limited cooperation with immigration and customs application. Ice applies immigration laws nationally, but seeks national and local aid to alert the federal authorities of immigrants sought to expel and hold this person until federal officers take care.
The leaders of the sanctuary jurisdictions say that their communities are safer because immigrants feel that they can communicate with the local police without fear of expulsion. It is also a way for municipalities to concentrate their dollars on crime locally, they say.
In addition to San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara, which includes a third applicant, the city of San José, there are 13 other complainants in the trial, who include Seattle and King County, Wash.; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minn.; New Haven, Conn.; and Santa Fe, nm.
Har writes for the Associated Press.
California Daily Newspapers
