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. gohawks2015 says:

    ARE YOU TIRED OF WINNING YET?
    I’M NOT!

    Pace on some items is a bit of a frustration but all in all POTUS Trump is kickin azz and taking names.

    Liked by 37 people

  2. scslayer says:

    Boom!

    And it only took 3 years!

    Liked by 14 people

  3. Deborah Fehr says:

    WINNING!! BIGLY!!! HAHAHAHAHA

    Liked by 6 people

  4. BoreMole says:

    Supremes next or will the wise Latina declare that the state governments are too eager to bring controversial cases before her?

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Robert Smith says:

    Yes!

    It’s crazy that, finally, lawless dens of crime might pay a price.

    Liked by 3 people

  6. Linus in W.PA. says:

    Coming at you like a freight train rolling!!!!!!!!!!!

    TRUMP 2020!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Liked by 13 people

    • Ninja7 says:

      Linus, Do you mean that the light they are seeing is Not the end of the tunnel but a FAST FREIGHT TRAIN 🤔🤔 (TRUMP written on the sides🤗) Hee hee.?
      Couldn’t Resist 🤗🤗

      Like

    • Sun Yat Sen says:

      Maybe President Trump would be able to get permission to re-write the O’Jays song “Love Train” to “Trump Train.” He was able to use “For the Love of Money” for The Apprentice show. Here is a youtube of that song (if I link it correctly).

      Like

  7. felipe says:

    Slowly, slowly the tide appears to be turning. Hopefully the delayed justice process of waiting for appropriate judicial appointments and carefully picking the most promising legal battles to fight is now paying off. My optimistic side believes this process could really start to snowball and result in “Too much winning”. I sure hope so. The waiting for justice has been agonizing for everyone on this site, I reckon..

    Liked by 23 people

    • We got sucked into their swamp over decades .. getting out was never gonna be fast or easy.

      The Best Is Yet To Come.

      Liked by 17 people

    • delighteddeplorable says:

      Agreed, felipe. It seems painstakingly slow now but one of these fine days we’ll look back, astonished, at how much POTUS accomplished. And after a second term, hoooboy!

      Liked by 14 people

    • starfcker says:

      Great comment, Felipe. Trump is a long-term planner. And those plans are starting to snowball. It’s the vision thing. Washington DC hasn’t seen somebody like this in a long time

      Liked by 5 people

      • dilonsfo says:

        Not since Teddy Roosevelt. We the swamp put Roosevelt in for Vice President they did so believing they would bury him into non existence. When McKinley was assassinated one the Republican powerhouse Mark Hanna gasped “that damned cowboy is now President”. At the time Roosevelt was controversial, tore into conglomerate businesses with anti-trust suits, and saved many of the beautiful wilderness sites in America from being destroyed by private industry. They called him a “progressive” in those days because he interrupted business as usual among the DC elite and huge business trusts strangling business competition.

        Liked by 1 person

      • dilonsfo says:

        A quote from the Miller Center about the Teddy Roosevelt Presidency:

        “Roosevelt did this through the force of his personality and through aggressive executive action. He thought that the President had the right to use any and all powers unless they were specifically denied to him. He believed that as President, he had a unique relationship with and responsibility to the people, and therefore wanted to challenge prevailing notions of limited government and individualism; government, he maintained, should serve as an agent of reform for the people.”

        Like

  8. HUGE .. this strikes at the heart of nullification law-making.

    Trump knows leverage $$$ .. be it China or CA.

    Liked by 14 people

  9. WeThePeople2016 says:

    It figures Virginia was in on the lawsuit. The AG is a far-left nut. This will hurt NOVA cities big time.

    Liked by 9 people

  10. T2020 says:

    Hallelujah!!! Guess that’s why San Fran just declared a state of emergency regarding the corona virus, even though they have zero reported cases so far. They just lo$t a $h*tload of Federal funding. 👍🏻

    Liked by 19 people

  11. Merle Marks says:

    Still winning!!! Best President Ever!!

    Liked by 9 people

  12. lcsteel says:

    A Reagan Judge, Bush judge, and a Clinton Judge….Wow that Reagen judge must be getting up in years.
    Trump has flipped the 2nd circuit by appointing 5 judges.

    Liked by 13 people

  13. Bob Lawblaw says:

    I wish the President would light a fire under Barr. There are too many FBI guys walking around free that should be in court…

    Liked by 13 people

    • Randolph Scott says:

      The criminal trials for the fbi scum should have been over by now, therefore ….
      “There are too many FBI guys walking around free that should be in PRISON.

      Liked by 7 people

  14. AnotherView says:

    Cut them all off….NOW. Make New York 1st, then hit California hard.

    Liked by 6 people

  15. Bogeyfree says:

    Now if only Barr would fight this hard to prosecute his own within the DOJ and FIB who plotted and participated in a coup to take down a sitting President.

    IMO, Shame on AG Barr.

    Liked by 12 people

  16. Kirsty I says:

    I feel like I’ve been swimming in a viral soup all day.
    It’s so nice to come to the surface and feel the son of righteousness on my face!

    Liked by 9 people

  17. bluenova1971 says:

    I assume this is headed to the Supremes, isn’t it?

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Craig W. Gordon says:

    Yes!!! No more special treatment zones that ignore Our Constitution! A huge victory for The Republic.

    Liked by 10 people

  19. MaineCoon says:

    Can the gummint clawback funds already given? Starting with California!

    Liked by 5 people

  20. TwoLaine says:

    I was thinking just last night that anyone who says President TRUMP has not built a wall on the border has to be deaf, dumb, illiterate and/or blind.

    He has Mexico guarding their borders and ours.
    He has taken away any and almost all incentives to come here illegally.
    You will be returned to wait elsewhere if you file for asylum.
    There is no catch and release.
    You can’t get a green card if you are a public charge.
    He got the emergency monies for the wall to defend our country and much will be built by end of year.
    And now, Fugitive Cities will have to pay for non-compliance of federal immigration law.

    This sure looks like a wall to me.

    We still need to end the b.s. tourism babies and alleged birthright citizenship for illegals. DACA & DAPA.

    And, we need to be allowed to jail and/or sue those officials who disregard our immigration laws, put our lives at risk daily, and discriminate against citizens on behalf of criminal illegals.

    States and cities should also take back the right to vote locally to citizens only, just like federal.

    Liked by 35 people

  21. SouthernTrumpette says:

    Liked by 23 people

  22. scrap1ron says:

    Imagine that, a court declaring that the law must be followed. The Wise Latina is going to have a cow.

    Liked by 15 people

  23. Bill Dumanch says:

    Headlines for the Future…

    “In related news, the Baltimore Crime wave spilled-over into Washington DC (da Capitol) as gunfire claims the lives of the 2nd Appeals Court, and begins its targeting of the Supreme Court”

    Or, aliens…

    Like

  24. I’m not keeping count, but I think all these frivolous & silly “resistance” actions against everything this president does filed by unethical activist lawyers is going to unintentionally give Trump the best record of victories at the SCOTUS of any president in modern (or maybe all) time………in contrast to his predecessor who had the worst.

    Liked by 14 people

    • BitterC says:

      And may the impetus needed to put a halt to nationwide stays…tho I think it was one of those circuit court stays that saved us from DAPA

      Like

  25. Ozark says:

    So start withholding the funds NOW and start with California and see if other cities in other states quickly fall in compliance or not, then go after them also if they don’t comply.

    Liked by 8 people

  26. Maga Truth Seeker says:

    I don’t feel no way tired of winning

    Liked by 10 people

  27. SarahB says:

    Great news!
    Let’s start with the city of San Bernardino where the Supt of Schools who has been making $500k/yr (along with his wife who gets another $150k in taxpayer money) while the average local income is at best $40k. An Obama lackey from day one.
    He’s just resigned (with lifetime benefits) to run for mayor but only if they waive the prohibition on outside income.
    This is where our federal education money has been going all these years….to political sycophants.

    Liked by 8 people

  28. Patchman2076 says:

    This is a huge win, please Mr. President pull any funding for Springfield Mass…
    Please please, I need to see these idiots go full meltdown on the city council.

    Liked by 7 people

  29. Patchman2076 says:

    This is a huge win, please Mr. President pull any funding for Springfield Mass…
    Please please, I need to see these idiots go full meltdown on the city council.

    Like

  30. TarsTarkas says:

    And a Hawaiian judge or the 9th circuit will issue a blanket injunction in 3, 2, 1 . . .

    An en banc rehearing will almost certainly be demanded. And of course a ruling from a court means nothing if there are no consequences for non-cooperation with ICE.

    Cuz illegal immigrants have more rights than citizens. Freedom from income taxes, freedom from prosecution, and they get to vote for more free stuff!

    Like

  31. Les D says:

    If there is another Fed Appeals Court that has previously ruled contrary to today’s 2nd Circuit, then it has a shot at the Court accepting it–splits in Fed Appeals Court Districts are contrary to the equal Federal Adm of Justice and Fed Govt–can’t have it where 4 or 5 states in one Fed App Ct jurisdiction have a different life then the others,etc.
    If the 2nd Cir is the only one that has so ruled and I don’t remember if this was one of those Nationwide Injunctions that was issued somewhere in the NE by a Fed Trial Court Judge, the Court can deny the loser’s Writ asking the Surpremes to review the case as it does 99% of the time–it only hears app 100 cases per year, so imagine how many Petitions it answers with a “Sorry Charley”. Which means the Appeals Ct decision is the law of the land. BUT, it does accept about 100 cases per annum.
    The loser’s 1st move will be seeking a Stay, and that will go to one Supreme who will prolly turn it over for a full Court vote. They can deny the Stay but later accept the Petition to hear the whole case, but in the meantime the 2nd Dist is the law of the land and would be 2 years to a final ruling? Not an encouraging sign to the losers.

    Liked by 3 people

    • tiredofallthis says:

      The 2nd Circuit decision is the law of the 2nd Circuit, no more and no less. Other Circuits can decide not to uphold the federal government’s position. I believe there are several other Circuits which have already declined to stay nationwide District Court injunctions against implementation of the policy to withhold grants from sanctuary cities. But those injunctions will not be effective in the 2nd Circuit after today’s hearing. I saw an AP article which claims that States in the 2nd Circuit such as New York will be able to ignore today’s ruling by saying that other Circuit’s have ruled differently. Wrong. All States located in the 2nd Circuit are subject to the ruling, whatever other Circuit Courts may do is totally irrelevant.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Tom says:

        So, One district court injunction applies to the entire country, but a win in one district court only applies to that district. Sounds FUBAR to me.

        Like

  32. Hans says:

    Just can’t wait for a reporter to ask GOV Of NY if he misses the FED money.. His answer would be …we don’t need it with the latest bail law.. we just let them out …

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Bill says:

    Double edged sword unfortunately. When a libtard comes in office they will use this against sanctuary cities for 2a. Unless we fight that through the supreme court and get it off the table by the end of Trumps second term. God willing after his victory.

    Like

    • cantcforest says:

      Bill, i doubt that many of the sanctuary 2a counties/cities receive many fed dollars anyway.

      Like

    • Jeff says:

      I’m sure they would try, but I don’t see how that works. One is upholding the Constitution, the other is intended to subvert it.

      Like

      • Bill says:

        Jeff, that’s why I said it needs to be fought and won in the SC before the libs take the WH back. It’s obviously constitutional, but it will still be fought in the courts. And if a lib is in charge, the IC and Judicial system will be back to their full on old ways of not following the law or constitution. Meaning they will break the backs of those cities while its hung up in court.

        Like

  34. StanH says:

    This is what matters. AWESOME!

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Shyster says:

    Great result as limited as it may be. This ruling only applies to a special law enforcement criminal justice Byrne grant to states and local jurisdictions. The Byrne grant statutory scheme was passed by congress vesting the DOJ to establish grant funding requirements and authorized the DOJ to decided wether the funding requirements had been complied with by the State or local grant application recipients. The degree to which this result can be applied to other State and local Federal funding issues is unknown and would depend on the Federal statutes authorizing the funding. Hopefully, this ruling can be applied to other Federal to State funding grants and programs. If not, it’s still a good win.

    Liked by 4 people

  36. “Sanctuaries” make me very angry because their real goal is to keep people illegal … to keep them fearing the Federales arriving in the night. To keep them effectively enslaved. To keep them as “the people who cannot say ‘No’ to anything.” This is doing nothing for these people except to give sanctuary to the abuses that are being thrown against them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Paprika says:

      Mmmmm…..you do know that these “effectively enslaved” people with all the “abuses that are being thrown against them” are illegal aliens that can “gain their freedom” by going back to their home country, don’t you?

      Or is it like a US citizen that is a poor misunderstood mass murderer that we should feel sorry for because he feels effectively enslaved because he fears the police “arriving in the night” to arrest him? Poor abused kinda guy, “this is doing nothing for these (kind of) people….” .

      Personally, “Sanctuaries make me angry” because they protect illegal aliens and/or any criminal from justice while leaving honest citizens open to be preyed upon. I get the drift of your message that people should not be abused and I agree. But just who do you think is actually being enslaved and abused here?

      Liked by 3 people

    • Johnny says:

      Mike
      Simple , they can pack their shyte and go home. They are here ILLEGALLY.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “Johnny, Paprika, I fully agree with you!”

      But here’s the problem that people very-conveniently hadn’t been talking about until PDJT threw it back in their faces: this is human trafficking. A very, very ugly thing.

      Right now we have people showing up at our southern border who came from Africa. Well, you can’t walk here from there: that means … “slave ships.” Likewise, it’s “a pretty demonic Moses” who gathers up people from horrendously disadvantaged situations and persuades them that “the promised land” necessarily consists of time in America for them and their families, hiding from the law.

      “Sanctuary?” Merely a euphemism for “hiding(!) them!!”

      There are, most unfortunately, a great many businessmen who wish that the 13th Amendment had never been enacted. They want a steady supply of men and women who “can’t say No to anything.” They seek out(!) the most wretchedly disadvantaged people that they can locate on this planet, and promise them infernal “hope.”

      PDJT was the very first President to demand that, not only Mexico, but nations much farther south – and in Africa – must finally confront, and be confronted with, what they were actually doing to these people … and why.

      “The Wall” … was only the barest part of it … the true situation is so vastly uglier.

      Like

  37. “Department of Justice (DOJ) can withhold funding from sanctuary cities and states refusing to cooperate with administration’s immigration enforcement.”

    THAT IS HUGE!

    Just imagine what the status of Illegal Immigration would be IF the President’s policies had not been resisted from the “Get Go”

    Heck, Kate Steinle might even be alive today if CA LIBERALS had not positioned their state as a haven for illegals.

    AND…

    CONSIDER THIS…

    While the Left and their media lackeys are positioning the Corona Virus narrative to claim any outbreak will be the President’s fault, they’re totally ignoring that our borders are porous because of THEIR heel-dragging!

    I hope these “Sanctuary States” and “Sanctuary Cities” are BLOCKED from receiving a single dime of federal money.

    Liked by 3 people

  38. Jim says:

    I live in Pima County AZ and the liberal members on the board of supervisors voted 3-2 to reject $1.8mil of Operation Stonegarden money from the feds a couple weeks ago. Over the objection of the Sheriff who said the funds are needed for OT and to maintain current levels of enforcement.

    The county has accepted the money for the previous 11 years but rejected it now because they don’t want the sheriff’s department cooperating with Border Patrol.

    So 3 pinhead politicians vote against enforcing the law and keeping deputies on the streets at the current level.

    Liked by 4 people

  39. @ChicagoBri says:

    I believe this relates only to federal law enforcement dollars, not any and all federal dollars- or am I mistaken?

    Liked by 2 people

  40. Jus wundrin says:

    Lemme guess, the aclu will appeal to the SCOTUS.

    Like

  41. Spurwing Plover says:

    Start with Chicago,San Francisco,L.A. and all points in between

    Like

  42. What is so discouraging to me as an attorney is how the heck a federal district court rule the way it did. The terms of the grants are precise. I have reviewed 1000s of them. They generally require that you do certain things or you have to repay the grant. The case law is also clear. Congress has the authority to condition grants and require payback if the conditions WERE or ARE NOT being met.

    Sessions actions were very conservative and well within the requirements of prior case law.

    Judge Roberts, you need to do something about the politicization of our Federal District Courts.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Dave Radetsky says:

      I don’t know why you’d find this discouraging (yes, I read your post). The fact is that the politicization of the courts has been happening for a very long time. This really is nothing new.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Paprika says:

        Well, I do know why Scott would find it discouraging, because it is. Especially so, if it has been happening for a very long time! Why would that make it less discouraging or not discouraging at all?

        I guess I don’t understand the intent of your post.

        Like

  43. donnyvee says:

    The feel-good story of the day!!

    Liked by 2 people

  44. Mike in a Truck says:

    The number of estimated illegal Aliens in the U.S. has been revised upward from 12 million to 22 million. I say multiple that 3X. Get TF out of my country!

    Liked by 1 person

  45. Brenda says:

    I am doing the happy dance on this news.💃🕺

    Liked by 1 person

  46. iwasthere says:

    Text book legal analysis. Right down the center of the plate. A big part of law school is learning to legal analysis, you know the rule of law and all that mother jazz. When you read an opinion like this, where the statute is so clearly applied, aka the legal analysis. . . well lets just say, it really lays bare that the lower court reasoning was infected by ‘liberal judge activism.’ But nice toss out by the 2nd circuit (well reasoned lower court), and now we write to show you get an F – in legal reasoning.

    Like

  47. hangtownbob says:

    Can the Feds withhold funds from programs that are not directly related to immigration?

    Like

    • Johnny says:

      You must be too young to remember raising the drinking age to 21 or the government deems it necessary for us to drive 55mph. They withheld federal funds on the highways to use as a weapon to make money hungry state governments surrender.

      Liked by 4 people

    • jbowen82 says:

      There is a limit to it. It was going too far to withhold all of a state’s Medicaid funds if it didn’t expand Medicaid — that was one thing the Court held unconstitutional in the Obamacare case.

      Like

  48. Johnny says:

    Spring is early this year. Judging by all the creeks with the water over the banks. the last few judicial rulings in the appeals courts must have melted every snowflake liberal out there.

    BWAAAAHA

    Winning😁

    Liked by 3 people

  49. czarowniczy says:

    A double-edged sword for our side here. If we win all the way the sanctuary cities get hit right where it hurts. If we lose we have a precedent to stop the Democrats from withholding Federal funds to jurisdictions that don’t eat the cookies they serve. Rats have been using withholding of Federal funds, especially highway funds, for decades as a lever to move reluctant areas Left.

    Like

  50. Patriot1783 says:

    Great news!

    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