County details plan of attack
Santa Clara seeks preliminary injunction as threat of losing federal funding looms
Santa Clara County officials on Thursday laid out details of their battle plan to stop President Donald Trump from defunding the county of nearly $1.7 billion, a decision they say would have “disastrous” consequences for residents who rely heavily on critical county services.
“What’s being risked here is actually the elimination of services that provide the real fabric of society,” said County Executive Jeff Smith at a news conference at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center on Thursday.
“This threat is real. A 35 percent decrease in our revenue in one year would basically push us into an insolvency position. If that is repeated over many years, the county would go into bankruptcy.”
The county on Thursday filed a motion for a nationwide preliminary injunction as part
“What’s being risked here is actually the elimination of services that provide the real fabric of society.” — County Executive Jeff Smith
of its lawsuit against Trump’s executive order, which threatens to defund so-called sanctuary jurisdictions.
It is the first preliminary injunction motion brought against Trump’s executive order, according to Santa Clara County Counsel James Williams.
“The executive order throws plaintiff county of Santa Clara’s current budgetary and planning process into chaos, and also poses a real risk to the health, welfare and safety of thousands of county residents,” the 41page lawsuit states.
Trump’s executive order, which was signed Jan. 25, withholds funding from cities and counties that “willfully violate federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.”
Cities, counties and universities across the country that have declared themselves sanctuaries for immigrants — vowing to refuse cooperation with federal enforcement efforts — are now fighting back, calling Trump’s order “patently unconstitutional.”
Among the services in Santa Clara County dependent on federal funding are basic food and nutrition benefits for infants, children, families and seniors; housing and community develop- ment; highway planning and construction; and security, emergency-response and counterterrorism efforts, according to county officials. Also at risk is Valley Medical, the county’s only “safety-net hospital,” which provides a significant level of care to low-income or uninsured residents and other vulnerable communities.
An estimated 84 percent of Valley Medical’s patients in fiscal 2016 were dependent on receiving federal funding to obtain their health care, according to CEO Paul Lorenz. The hospital receives an estimated $1 billion in direct federal funding or funding contingent upon federal revenue streams, primarily for the Medicaid and Medi-Cal pro- grams, he said.
“This public hospital system alone represents a $2.7 billion local investment in the health care of our community, and we’re not going to allow that to be put at risk,” said David Cortese, president of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors.
“If we don’t take a stand now against this unlawful power grab by President Trump, there’s no telling what he might do next.”
Most of the federal funds are provided to the county on a reimbursement basis, which means the county fronts costs for services with the expectation that the government will reimburse those expenses down the line, according to Wil- liams.
“With millions of dollars every week being spent, we cannot continue to wait,” he said. “We need to get relief now.”
The federal government will have an opportunity to respond to the county’s motion, and a hearing on the motion will likely take place April 5, according to Williams.
Earlier this month, Santa Clara County joined 19 other cities and counties across the nation in filing a “friend of the court” brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to uphold important constitutional protections for immigrants held in prolonged mandatory immigration detention by the federal government. The brief supports the arguments of a group of immigrants who were ordered into immigration detention while awaiting deportation proceedings, often for months or years at a time, with no opportunity to be considered for release. The Supreme Court is reviewing a decision of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, which held that immigrants in prolonged mandatory detention must be given a bond hearing every six months where an immigration judge can consider whether they can safely be released based on their individual facts and circumstances.