JUDGE QUOTES Trump, blocks immigration order.
Block on sanctuary-city order cites threat to pull U.S. funding
SAN FRANCISCO — For the third time in two months, a federal judge used President Donald Trump’s own words against him in blocking an immigration order.
In a ruling Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick quoted Trump to support his decision to block the president’s executive order to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.
Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter on Wednesday morning, calling the decision “ridiculous” and saying he would take his fight to the highest court, tweeting: “See you in the Supreme Court.”
In his ruling, Orrick, made reference to Trump calling the sanctuary cities order a “weapon” against communities that disagree with his immigration policies. The judge also cited a February interview in which the president threatened to cut off funding to California, saying the state “in many ways is out of control.”
The first comment was evidence that the administration intended the executive order to apply broadly to all sorts of federal funding, not a relatively small pot of grant money as the Justice Department had argued, the judge said.
The second statement showed the two California governments that sued to block the order — San Francisco and Santa Clara County — had good reason to believe they would be targeted, Orrick said.
Trump’s words also were cited by federal judges in Maryland and Hawaii, who last month blocked his revised ban on new visas for people from six Muslim-majority countries. U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson in Hawaii and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland said comments by Trump supported allegations that the ban was aimed at Muslims.
Trump signed the sanctuary-cities order shortly after becoming president, targeting cities and counties that limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities by, for example, refusing in some instances to turn over illegal aliens who are held in jails on other matters or by preventing police officers from inquiring about immigration status.
Orrick’s preliminary injunction against the sanctuary-cities order applies nationwide until the judge can rule on the underlying constitutional issues in the case.
The government hasn’t cut off any money yet or declared any communities sanctuary cities. But the Justice Department sent letters last week advising communities to prove they are in compliance with immigration law. California was informed it could lose $18.2 million.
Orrick said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.
Even if the president could do so, those conditions would have to be clearly related to the funds at issue and not coercive, as the executive order appeared to be, Orrick said.
White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus described the ruling as another example of the “9th Circuit going bananas.”
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is generally considered the most liberal in the country. Orrick does not sit on that court, but his district is in the territory of the appeals court, which has ruled against one version of Trump’s travel ban.
“Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the ‘ban’ case and now the ‘sanctuary’ case is brought in the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%),” Trump said on Twitter. “They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.”
“The idea that an agency can’t put in some reasonable restriction on how some of these monies are spent is something that will be overturned eventually, and we will win at the Supreme Court level at some point,” Priebus said.
The Trump administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust that is needed to get people to report crime.
A FIGHT IN TEXAS
Elsewhere, Texas Republicans on Wednesday were poised to take a step toward banning sanctuary cities in their state, debating a bill through which police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed for not cooperating fully with federal immigration authorities.
Although Democrats don’t have the votes in the Republican-controlled Legislature to stop the bill from going to Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who made such a ban a priority, they vowed to fight it at every step, promising hours of emotionally charged debate Wednesday before a House vote.
Under the bill, the state could withhold funding from municipal governments for acting as sanctuary cities, even as the Trump administration’s efforts to do so have hit a roadblock.
Other Republican-controlled states have pushed for similar policies in recent years, just as more liberal ones have done the opposite. But Texas would be the first in which police chiefs and sheriffs could be jailed for not helping enforce immigration law. They also could lose their jobs.
The bill is needed to “keep the public safe and remove bad people from the street,” said Rep. Charlie Geren, a Republican.
“The bill does not target or discriminate against illegal immigrants. This bill specifically targets criminals who happen to be here illegally,” Geren said.
Texas doesn’t currently have any sanctuary cities.