U.S. appeals court: ‘Sanctuary cities’ order is illegal
President SAN FRANCISCO —
Donald Trump’s executive order seeking to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that limit cooperation with immigration authorities is unconstitutional, but a judge went too far when he blocked its enforcement nationwide, a U.S. appeals court ruled Wednesday.
In a 2-1 ruling, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed the order exceeded the president’s authority.
“Absent congressional authorization, the adminis- tration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effec- tuate its own policy goals,” Chief Judge Sidney Thomas wrote for the majority.
But he also said there wasn’t enough evidence to support a nationwide ban and sent the case back to the lower court for more hear- ings on that question.
An email to a spokesman for the U.S. Justice Department was not immediately returned.
U.S. District Judge William Orrick said in November that the order threatened all federal funding and that the president did not have the authority to attach new conditions to spending that was approved by Congress.
The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco andSanta Clara. The executive order potentially jeopardized hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to the two counties, Orrick said, citingcomments by Trump andU.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence of the order’s scope.
The administration said the order applied to a relatively small pot of money that already required compliance with immigration law. Government attorney Chad Readler had told Orrick that the order applied to only three Justice Departmentand Homeland Security grants that would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara and possibly no money for San Francisco.
During arguments before the 9th Circuit in April, Thomas asked what the court was supposed to make of statements by Trump and his administration about wanting to withhold money from sanctuary cities.
Thomas also questioned whether the order would be constitutional if it applied to all types of funding, as the lower-court judge found.