Court rules for state, S.F. in sanctuary laws case

Trump administration can’t withhold funding

The Trump administration cannot withhold funding from the state of California or the city of San Francisco for their sanctuary laws that restrict police cooperation with federal immigration agents, a U.S. appeals court ruled Monday.

Federal law requires state and local governments to share information with federal officials about the “immigration status” of someone in their custody. But the law does not require them to notify immigration agents about upcoming release dates or to keep undocumented immigrants in custody beyond those dates so that federal agents can pick them up and deport them, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said.

“No evidence has been cited to suggest that local officials have ignored ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) requests for ‘immigration status’ information,” which California allows local law enforcement agencies to share with federal agents, Judge Richard Clifton said in the 30 ruling. He said the federal informationsharing requirement “does not extend to contact and release status information,” which California legally withholds.

Clifton, an appointee of President George W. Bush, was joined by Judges Eric Miller, appointed by President Trump, and William Fletcher, appointed by President Bill Clinton.

The ruling comes four weeks after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s legal challenge to California’s 2018

sanctuary law, the first of its kind in the nation. The law was intended to avoid state participation in increasingly severe federal immigration policies and encourage immigrants to cooperate with local police without fear of deportation. The law’s restrictions on informationsharing do not apply to immigrants convicted of violent crimes.

Monday’s ruling allows California, San Francisco and other cities and counties in the state to keep federal funds they were awarded under the Justice Department’s Edward Byrne grants for state and local criminal justice programs.

California has used the funding for pro

“Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone.”

Dennis Herrera, San Francisco city attorney

grams focused on drug crimes, violent crimes and gangs, while San Francisco has focused on reducing the illegal drug trade, and providing mental health and drug treatment services. The state says it would lose $31.1 million in federal grants for state and local funding if the Trump administration’s view prevailed, while San Francisco was in line to lose $1.4 million.

While the appeals court largely upheld an injunction issued by U.S. District Judge William Orrick III against the funding cutoffs, the court rejected Orrick’s order of a nationwide injunction that would have applied to all state and local governments, and instead limited the injunction to the state’s boundaries. Clifton said a statewide order would fully protect California and San Francisco, the plaintiffs in the suit.

The ruling maintains the status quo, as Orrick had suspended the nationwide aspect of his injunction while the appeals court reviewed it. Three other federal appeals courts have ruled against the Trump administration in separate cases, but the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the funding restrictions in February. The Supreme Court often grants review of significant issues in which lower federal courts are divided.

“Immigration enforcement is the responsibility of the federal government alone,” San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement after the ruling. He said the city is not interfering in federal immigration enforcement, “but our police, firefighters and nurses are not going to be commandeered and turned into the Trump administration’s deportation force.”

There was no immediate comment from the U.S. Justice Department.