Appeals court declares Trump’s ‘sanctuary cities’ order illegal

SAN FRANCISCO — A divided U.S. appeals court on Wednesday struck down a key part of President Donald Trump’s contentious effort to crack down on cities and states that limit cooperation with immigration officials, saying an executive order threatening to cut funding for “sanctuary cities” was unconstitutional.

In a 2-1 decision, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with a lower court that the order exceeded the president’s authority. Congress alone controls spending under the U.S. Constitution, and presidents do not have the power to withhold funding it approves to pursue their policy goals, the court majority said.

“By its plain terms, the executive order directs the agencies of the executive branch to withhold funds appropriated by Congress in order to further the administration’s policy objective of punishing cities and counties that adopt so-called `sanctuary’ policies,” wrote Chief Judge Sidney Thomas, joined by Judge Ronald Gould.

The court, however, also said the lower court judge went too far when he blocked enforcement of Trump’s order nationwide after a lawsuit from two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara.

Thomas said there wasn’t enough evidence to support it, limited the injunction to California and sent the case back to the lower court to determine if a wider ban was warranted.

Devin O’Malley, a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department, called the ruling a victory for “criminal aliens in California, who can continue to commit crimes knowing that the state’s leadership will protect them from federal immigration officers whose job it is to hold them accountable and remove them from the country.”

“The Justice Department remains committed to the rule of law, to protecting public safety, and to keeping criminal aliens off the streets,” he said.

The decision overall is a big win for opponents of the executive order, but Trump could try to enforce it against jurisdictions outside the nine Western states covered by the 9th Circuit, said David Levine, an expert on federal court procedure at the University of California, Hastings, College of Law.

“If they wanted to go after (Chicago, Denver or Philadelphia), they would not be bound by an injunction,” he said. “Those places would have to bring their own lawsuits and whatever happens, happens in those cases.”