Attorneys say sanctuary city plan too vague
A federal judge heard arguments Friday on Trump’s order to defund certain cities
SAN FRANCISCO — Responding to lawsuits from Santa Clara County and San Francisco, federal attorneys on Friday confessed they have no idea how President Donald Trump’s executive order stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of federal funding would actually work.
They said the government at
this point hasn’t identified any “sanctuary jurisdictions,” much less defined what the term means.
The admissions — coming in an hourlong hearing in federal court on the county’s suits seeking to block the executive order — suggested that the Trump administration has done little so far to translate months of threatening words from the president and Attorney General Jeff Sessions into a real anti-sanctuary policy. Local jurisdictions around the country provoked those threats by declaring themselves sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants, and proclaiming they would not turn those immigrants over to federal agents.
Department of Justice attorneys sought to turn the vagueness of the federal response to their legal advantage. They argued Santa Clara County and San Francisco can’t claim they have been damaged by the policy because the government is still unclear how it will be enforced. They also noted that the order only threatens to take away certain grants, not all federal funding as Trump originally promised.
But Judge William H. Orrick challenged their line of argument. After hearing the government attorneys insist the policy was having little impact, he asked, “What would the purpose of the executive order be?”
Orrick did not indicate when he would issue a ruling in the high-stakes case, but attorneys for Santa Clara County said they anticipated it would come soon, “within days, not weeks.”
They also expressed confidence that Orrick will rule in their favor, citing the judge’s questioning of the government attorneys.
‘No idea’
During a news conference following the hearing, Santa Clara County Supervisor Dave Cortese said the Justice Department made arguments that showed “they have no idea how this is going to be applied, which lends itself to an argument that this executive order is so vague and ambiguous that is should be declared unconstitutional.”
Orrick said Friday’s hearing was just on the motion for a preliminary injunction. A hearing on the merits of the lawsuit will occur later.
John Keker, a prominent trial attorney representing Santa Clara County, told Orrick that Trump’s executive order is “a weapon to bribe jurisdictions of the money they need to operate.”
Santa Clara County would lose an estimated $1.7 billion — about 35 percent of its total revenue — if the Trump administration took away all federal funding. County Counsel James Williams said the county spends up to $5 million per day on county services with the expectation that it will be reimbursed by the federal government down the line.
“It seemed like (Judge Orrick) recognized that there was already harm being done to the county because the county’s funding is already at risk,” said law professor Jayashri Srikantiah, director of the Immigrants’ Rights Clinic at Stanford, citing this as a critical point in the hearing.
“The judge is in agreement that the harm to the county is not speculative, that it’s happening right now.”
Definition unclear
Attorneys representing the government said several times there’s no clear definition of what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or how the executive order would be enforced.
“There’s no actual enforcement action on the table or that’s being formally threatened,” said Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler, who presented arguments on behalf of the Trump administration.
Readler also said the executive order refers only to stripping sanctuary jurisdictions of three particular Department of Justice grants, not all federal funding.
“It doesn’t apply to these broader financial concerns,” he said.
If Santa Clara County’s landmark motion for a preliminary injunction is granted, it would stop the section of the executive order applying to sanctuary jurisdictions from going into effect until the court rules on the county’s Feb. 3 lawsuit against the Trump administration. The lawsuit has since been joined by dozens of cities and counties across the nation, questioning the constitutionality of withholding federal funds.
The county was the first in the nation to seek an injunction of this kind against the controversial policy, according to officials, a move that has catapulted the region to the forefront of a heated legal battle against the Trump administration.
Not everyone supports the county’s stance.
“Our view is that the president has the right to withhold federal funding based on a local government’s unwillingness to comply with federal law,” said Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American-Immigration Reform. “There have to be consequences to that.”
Doors to the courtroom opened at 8:30 a.m. By that time, dozens of people were lined up to get a seat. About 100 members of the public got inside the small courtroom and an overflow room.
Activists gather
About 50 activists and organizers were already gathered in front of the Phillip Burton Federal Building ahead of the hearing. Many of them were with the Service Employees International Union, which is part of an amicus brief supporting San Francisco’s lawsuit.
Supporters of the two counties picketed at the entrance, chanting slogans such as “no justice, no peace” and carrying signs reading “Sanctuary 4 all,” “city workers for sanctuary” and “ICE out of California.”
Sasha Cuttler, a registered nurse at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and an SEIU member, said Trump’s executive order threatens patient trust in hospitals and other agencies.
“To have public health, you need to have the trust of the public,” Cuttler said.
Santa Clara County Supervisor Cindy Chavez said this legal battle extends far beyond her jurisdiction.
“It’s for every county in the nation that is afraid that the president or his administration on any given day can decide that you’re on the chopping block.”