Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can Withhold Funds From Sanctuary Cities…

A big victory for the Trump administration as a federal appeals court rules today the Department of Justice (DOJ) can withhold funding from sanctuary cities and states refusing to cooperate with administration’s immigration enforcement.

A group of seven states including New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia, along with New York City, sued the DOJ in 2017 after then-AG Jeff Sessions announced the DOJ would start withholding funding from local governments that refused to share information about undocumented immigrants or provide jail access to federal authorities investigating inmates’ immigration status.

Today a three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a prior district court ruling saying the DOJ lacked the authority to impose immigration-related conditions on funding. [Ruling Here]

The Trump administration can now withhold funds from any city and state that declares themselves a ‘sanctuary‘ from immigration enforcement.

.

This entry was posted in AG Bill Barr, AG Jeff Sessions, Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Illegal Aliens, media bias, Occupy Type Moonbats, President Trump, Professional Idiots, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

212 Responses to Federal Appeals Court Rules Trump Administration Can Withhold Funds From Sanctuary Cities…

  1. calbear84 says:

    Whenever the subject of sanctuary cities comes up, I ask the liberals “sanctuary from what?”
    They look like deer in the headlights!

    Liked by 10 people

  2. InAz says:

    If the USA had an Attorney General that was not aiding the Banana Republic politicians and their minions/lackeys/sycophants/boot lickers… the state politicians could be arrested and this Communist Anarchy Chitt would stop.

    Liked by 8 people

    • “globalist”.

      If we replace the word communist with globalist it is my extreme belief that we will be 100% more accurate in our statements.

      And it’s all fascism to be clear. The labels are just the mask of the day.

      Like

  3. i would like to see the sanctuary cities/states be held liable for the illegals they harbour.ilegal breaks into your house you sue the city.illegal murders someone,the relatives can file a suit against the city /state.

    Liked by 16 people

    • amazed treetop downlooker says:

      Aye !

      Like

    • WSB says:

      And here is the US Code:

      8 US 1324. Harboring illegal aliens. Whatever sentance the criminal illegal alien receives, those harboring them receive the same.

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1324

      Liked by 5 people

      • Gofer says:

        (iv) in the case of a violation of subparagraph (A)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) resulting in the death of any person, be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined under title 18, or both.

        Liked by 2 people

        • WSB says:

          You bet…another law on the books…an important one…that has completely been disregarded.

          So the disregarders also need to be punished…imho.

          Liked by 2 people

        • TonyE says:

          I like the “death” part.

          It’s so medieval, just like the processes that pass as “thinking” in the mind of a Progressive. Pre Renaissance Dark Ages all the way:

          “Witch! Witch! Throw her in the well, if she floats she’s a witch! Burn her!”

          Myself I’d prefer the quartering, etc, etc… and then I’d add the guillotine and a garrote somewhere along the way. But, I was born in Europe, so excuse me for my cultural guilty pleasures! ;-D

          Like

    • chiefworm says:

      NOPE. Can’t agree with that. The monies need to come out of the pockets of the Governor’s, Legislators, Mayors and Police Chiefs (not County Sheriffs as a norm). The law abiding citizens shouldn’t have to pay for lawless legislators misdeeds.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. Pale rider says:

    Somebody pinch me I must be dreaming.

    Liked by 3 people

  5. hokkoda says:

    It’s a big step that reflects Trump’s transformation of the Federal Courts. Although this is a great baby step, we do need to get to a point where local officials can be arrested and prosecuted for conspiracy to evade Federal immigration laws. Start prosecuting individuals and fining them and putting them in jail, and what how fast “sanctuary cities” reverse course.

    Liked by 12 people

  6. Pew-Anon says:

    A great victory, but a sad day what such a thing needs to be a great victory.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. MILupper says:

    Legal Eagles correct me if I am wrong. This 2nd circuit ruling is on the actual case of whether the fed gov. can with hold funding to sanctuary cities and states.
    The other appeals court rulings were only on the circuit court injunctions to stop the fed with holding funding. The other appeals courts have never heard the full case. Therefor the 2nd appeals court ruling stands until another appeals court rules differently on the full case. Then the case may go the the SC.

    Liked by 1 person

    • jbowen82 says:

      No. This one was also just a ruling on the partial injunction. There has not been a trial on the merits at the District Court. This ruling only applies in the 2nd Circuit, and as it is in conflict with the other three circuits, that almost guarantees it goes to the Supreme Court next year for resolution.

      Liked by 2 people

      • As a Man Thinkth says:

        If the Supreme Court was the least bit involved in the development and stabilization of our civilization they should hear this case NEXT WEEK…after all the LAWFARE GANG has blocked passage since 2017…

        Liked by 4 people

        • Gofer says:

          The Constitution states all disputes involving feds and states go directly to SCOTUS but they have allowed it to crawl through the system. I asked Judicial Watch about this and here is their answer….

          “You are correct that the US Supreme Court has original jurisdiction of disputes between states and the feds.  The Court, however, has interpreted its jurisdiction as discretionary in such cases, not mandatory – meaning that they will only hear the case if they so choose.  And only very rarely does the Court agree to exercise its jurisdiction.  For this reason, most parties choose to file in the federal district court where they are assured that the court will at least hear the case.  It’s one of the situations where the Supreme Court, being the Supreme Court, gets to make the rules.”

          Liked by 1 person

      • Les D says:

        jb82, I think you’re right on this, SD’s staff may have jumped it a little with “The Trump administration can now withhold funds from ANY city and state that declares themselves a ‘sanctuary‘ from immigration enforcement.”

        I forget the procedural history and the Orders of the other three App Cts, but the AG being able to withhold $$ for non-compliance, nation wide, is now bound for the Supremes because of the split in the Fed App Circuits. Maybe, if you are not a Fed App guy, there is one on the board for this q: Can the AG, until the Supremes speak temporarily or finally–can he withhold $$$ in the 2nd Cir sanctuary states and cities, like NYC and Boston and the Counties who may run their big jails? I don’t know east coast towns that well. Is Rikers NYC or county run for example?

        s

        Liked by 1 person

        • jbowen82 says:

          He can’t withhold yet. The 2nd Circuit sent it back to the trial court so the trial court needs to do whatever it’s going to do with the ruling on the partial summary judgment. It may actually still NOT vacate its preliminary injunction, but that’s unlikely — the PI would be based on likelihood of success at trial, and the 2nd Circuit has pretty strongly signaled that the plaintiff states don’t have much of a case, at least on these grounds. So assuming the trial court vacates its PI, then he can start withholding funds as to those states.

          Like

          • Les D says:

            Thanks Counsel. I saw it was Remanded on the 1st page of the Opinion and didn’t think that thru, I’ll be looking for your posts from now on.
            The bad news upon checking is it is only $250 million nationwide, so whatever NY and NYC and Counties were getting, its chump change. NYC loses 10x that much in a week servicing their debt.

            Like

        • Les D says:

          The other thing is of the total pot the AG has at his disposal for these individual grants, which I think was in the $250 million range, not sure, and so after carved up however they do it, it probably ain’t enuf to bring Fredo’s bro or NYC mayor back to clearer thinking. Not like the Mennan’s after shave slapl “Thanks, I needed that”.

          Like

  8. cplogics says:

    Thank you, Lord. Perhaps some common sense and decency is coming back into our judicial system.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Jerry Cox says:

    More Winamins please!

    Liked by 2 people

  10. Rob says:

    Hey Cher – it’s because President Trump IS the Chief Law Enforcement Officer of the Nation!

    Liked by 2 people

  11. MIL i believe that beings the 2nd circuit voted to uphold this i think if any challenge would have to go directly to the SC.and they can take it up or kick it back,if so it stands.

    Liked by 2 people

  12. Obama threatened to withhold highway funds if states didn’t let males in the girls’ showers and bathrooms at public schools, even though Congress had never passed any such underlying laws.

    Liked by 8 people

    • Gary says:

      I mentioned I.C.C. the other day, in terms of relationship between Fed and States the Interstate Commerce Clause is the feds sharpest weapon for bend a state to it’s will, and the rest of the country for that matter. The didn’t make it illegal to produce an incandescent light bulb, the made it illegal to sell across state lines.

      Like

  13. El Torito says:

    Keep their coats!

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Dee Paul Deje says:

    Still not tired of winning.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Finally..took them long enough

    Like

    • Your Tour Guide says:

      Please, please, pretty please
      pretty please with sugar on top
      add Clarkston, Georgia to the list!

      Mayor McSleeze was trying his damndest
      to have Syrian Refugees fastracked there a few
      years ago. To add to the absurd influx existing
      from SIX refugee organizations in a city that
      used to be one square mile.

      Like

  16. JimFromNH says:

    What kind of ‘funding’ can be withheld?
    What kind of grants?
    Could monies previously promised be rescinded? Or diverted?
    FE, could Gavin Newsome’s train $$ be sent to build the CA portion of the southern wall?
    Sounds like clarifications may be needed, & as well as a Supreme Court review.

    Like

  17. Tazok says:

    Not against any city. Only in the 2nd circuit. The decision notes LA, Phila, Chicago circuits ruled against it. This was refusing Byeme policing grants, not blank transfers.

    Like

  18. Les D says:

    Here’s a DOJ chart for 2019 Byrne Law Enforcement Assistance Grant’s showing how much of the only total $250M went to the various applicants from governments across the country. Some surprises in there. But, assuming the Court eventually agrees with the Second Circuit opinion and makes that the law of the land ending the other injunctions previously issued, it’s not going to alter the political stances of the two big losers-CA and NY. Tx and FL were the other two major recipients but they as we all know aren’t Saintly Sanctuary States.
    https://external.ojp.usdoj.gov/selector/title?solicitationTitle=BJA%20FY%2019%20Edward%20Byrne%20Memorial%20Justice%20Assistance%20Grant%20(JAG)%20Program%20-%20State%20Solicitation&po=BJA

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s