A California judge just issued a surprising ruling against a noncompliant jurisdiction which did not cooperate with immigration enforcement. They took the White House to court demanding that they receive their federal funding even though they maintained sanctuary state status.
California went so far as to declare that the whole state was a sanctuary for criminal illegal aliens and then demanded that the federal government keep dishing out grant money. But the state was surprised when a district judge in Northern California (of all places!) ruled that the government doesn’t have to give the funds until the matter can be hashed out fully in court.
The Trump administration does not immediately have to award California a grant being withheld over concerns the state is a sanctuary for people in the country illegally, a federal judge said Monday.
$1 million was the small amount of money at issue, and at this point, it is only delayed not denied, U.S. District Judge William Orrick said. But he rejected the state’s request for a preliminary injunction to turn over the money, he also rejected a request by the U.S. Department of Justice to dismiss California’s lawsuit. The judge said the suit raised “weighty and novel constitutional issues” that would benefit from additional arguments.
Judge Orrick is not only from the Northern District of California where Trump has had his share of judicial antagonists, but he is also an Obama appointee.
It is highly unlikely that the Supreme Court would side with California or any other sanctuary city. The money in question is not given because of entitlement, it is appropriated for the Justice Department to issue in the form of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance “grants.”
The applicants must meet certain criteria before funds can be given, and not everyone who applies gets the grants. So the DOJ can decide that one criterion is that you must cooperate with ICE officials to protect your citizens.
The Trump administration scored another win in court this week. A judge in Maryland ruled that the White House had the right to end DACA when the president made the call.
Judge Roger W. Titus, a Bush appointee, ruled late Monday President Trump acted within his authority in his effort to rescind an executive order former President Barack Obama announced in 2012 as a way to protect illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors.
“This decision took control of a pell-mell situation and provided Congress — the branch of government charged with determining immigration policy — an opportunity to remedy it. Given the reasonable belief that DACA was unlawful, the decision to wind down DACA in an orderly manner was rational,” Titus wrote.
DACA was originally an executive action from former President Obama, there was no input from Congress. So the idea that the present president doesn’t have the authority to rescind it is ludicrous.
Two big things about this:
- This is the same judge that a year ruled the federal government had to make the payments. So what changed?
- This is a ruling in case law that says the feds (at least for now) doesn’t have to issue grants to states that don’t meet the criteria.
Credit: Hot Air