Judge Blocks Donald Trump’s Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities

[Crabtownboy]

It appears Trump has had 100 days of mostly defeat, not accomplishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions on Tuesday, just as the White House was looking for victories to celebrate from the president’s first 100 days in office.

Trump’s order was challenged by the city and county of San Francisco and the county of Santa Clara, California, two of the jurisdictions under presidential fire for limiting their cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Tuesday’s legal setback is yet another defeat for Trump, whose executive orders, particularly those related to immigration, have met resistance in the courts. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order’s enforcement, effectively preventing the administration from pulling federal funds from the sanctuary jurisdictions that sued and others that may likewise feel their federal funding is at risk if they don’t go along with Trump’s anti-immigrant policies.

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” wrote Orrick, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick added.

The judge held that the executive order, which Trump signed during his first week on the job, is likely unconstitutional because it is too vague and would likely deprive the localities of monies that are rightly theirs, which would violate the Fifth Amendment. The judge also said the order likely violates the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers.

Judge Blocks Donald Trump's Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities | The Huffington Post

 

[MennoSota]

This is why President Obama and Democrats worked hard to place liberal judges in lower courts.

 

[Crabtownboy]

This is why President Obama and Democrats worked hard to place liberal judges in lower courts.

You need to write about the ruling and not just give an uninformed reaction. It was the words of the Trump administration that doomed the order.

Sanctuary cities ruling: When a judge quotes Sean Spicer, it’s not a good sign for the White House

Where does the Constitution give the president the power to withhold money from targeted cities?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The government tried to make the case that the order doesn’t actually do anything, at least not at the moment, because the administration has yet to define what exactly a sanctuary city is. It was their way of convincing the judge to toss out the lawsuit on the grounds that no city or county has yet suffered any harm.

But in public, administration officials boasted about how the order would force sanctuary cities to their knees. The order described in court as essentially an empty shell was portrayed in news conferences and television interviews as a powerful tool to protect the public from dangerous undocumented immigrants being shielded by wayward cities and counties.

It was that gap that disturbed Orrick.

In his ruling, the judge pointed to a February interview between Trump and former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly, in which Trump called the order “a weapon” to use against cities that tried to defy his immigration policies.

 

[Happy]

It appears Trump has had 100 days of mostly defeat, not accomplishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions on Tuesday, just as the White House was looking for victories to celebrate from the president’s first 100 days in office.

Trump’s order was challenged by the city and county of San Francisco and the county of Santa Clara, California, two of the jurisdictions under presidential fire for limiting their cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Tuesday’s legal setback is yet another defeat for Trump, whose executive orders, particularly those related to immigration, have met resistance in the courts. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order’s enforcement, effectively preventing the administration from pulling federal funds from the sanctuary jurisdictions that sued and others that may likewise feel their federal funding is at risk if they don’t go along with Trump’s anti-immigrant policies.

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” wrote Orrick, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick added.

The judge held that the executive order, which Trump signed during his first week on the job, is likely unconstitutional because it is too vague and would likely deprive the localities of monies that are rightly theirs, which would violate the Fifth Amendment. The judge also said the order likely violates the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers.

Judge Blocks Donald Trump's Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities | The Huffington Post

All federal agencies and officers elected or appointed are subject to Executive Orders.

All Executive Orders are Orders signed by the President.

ANY agency or officer can challenge an Executive Order.

A challenged Executive Order will thereafter be subject to review and pending an outcome of the review, the Executive Order sets in limbo waiting, before it is complied with, or tossed out.

The worthy news is; a Federal Officer (ie a Federal Judge) has challenged an Executive Order of the President's.

The worthless "news" is; the waste of ink and paper to and mike air time to yammer on about an "undecided"
review and outcome of a challenged Executive Order.

 

[Brent W]

I have no problem letting this go to the Supreme Court.

 

[Revmitchell]

Judicial activism at its finest

 

[Brent W]

Judicial activism at its finest

Is it ok when conservatives do it?

 

[Revmitchell]

Is it ok when conservatives do it?

Conservatives don't do it

 

[Brent W]

Conservatives don't do it

So when Texas Judge Reed Charles O'Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that Obamacare violated Religious rights with birth control, that was not Judicial Activism? Whether you agree with it or not, there is a reason these Conservative judges were ruling against a Democratic President. Activism is not a judicial privilege that Democrats only get.

You don't see Conservative Judicial Activism because your bias does not allow you to. In your eyes they are ruling for your views. Therefore != activism. When a Democratic Judge rules against your views, your bias sees that as activism.

 

[Revmitchell]

So when Texas Judge Reed Charles O'Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, ruled that Obamacare violated Religious rights with birth control, that was not Judicial Activism?

Nope right in line.

Whether you agree with it or not, there is a reason these Conservative judges were ruling against a Democratic President. Activism is not a judicial privilege that Democrats only get.

Judicial activism is only by dems because they are by nature "progressives" in other words they want to change the normal processes. In fact they want everything to change. Even Obama admitted he did not like the constitution because it was to limiting. Either way that is off topic.

You don't see Conservative Judicial Activism because your bias does not allow you to. In your eyes they are ruling for your views. Therefore != activism. When a Democratic Judge rules against your views, your bias sees that as activism.

I don't see it because its not there. By nature conservatives have no motivation to be activists, we already have what it is we want to "conserve" on our side. It is the change agents 'progressives" that want, need, and push for activism. In fact it is quite often touted by them.

 

[Brent W]

Even Obama admitted he did not like the constitution because it was to limiting.

A lot of people haven't liked the Constitution over the years. That is why it has been amended 27 times. Like I said, your bias prevents you from seeing judicial activism when it comes to you political views. That judge was wanting to change the law of the land. Right now, every Judge, including the conservative, that has ruled against Trump as done so to preserve the current law of the land and to prevent unilateral executive orders from being put into place. If anything, the Judges on the Democratic side are being the conservative ones.

 

[Revmitchell]

If anything, the Judges on the Democratic side are being the conservative ones.

What a joke. There is a long line of precedence with what Trump did. This will go to the SC and trump will win. This ruling came from the most overturned court in the land and by the way the most liberal. Those looking to bring this law suit went judge shopping to get the ruling they desired.

 

[Brent W]

What a joke. There is a long line of precedence with what Trump did. This will go to the SC and trump will win. This ruling came from the most overturned court in the land and by the way the most liberal. Those looking to bring this law suit went judge shopping to get the ruling they desired.

An actual Conservative judge is the one who started the entire immigration ban issue! On top of that, that ruling caused the Trump administration to revise their executive order instead of fighting it.

Can someone please explain to me how a conservative Judge is responsible for liberal Judicial activism????

On top of that, any Judge should find caution with a President threatening removing funding from nearly 100 cities via a unilateral action. That is something that should be blocked and the Supreme Court should hear it.

Also, please explain to me how unilateral executive orders affecting millions of citizens in nearly 100 cities bypassing Congress is a conservative value?

 

[Revmitchell]

An actual Conservative judge is the one who started the entire immigration ban issue! On top of that, that ruling caused the Trump administration to revise their executive order instead of fighting it.

Can someone please explain to me how a conservative Judge is responsible for liberal Judicial activism????

So you say.

On top of that, any Judge should find caution with a President threatening removing funding from nearly 100 cities via a unilateral action. That is something that should be blocked and the Supreme Court should hear it.

The number of cities is irrelevant. What we should be concerned in a greater way about is 100 cities intentionally ignoring the law openly.

Also, please explain to me how unilateral executive orders affecting millions of citizens in nearly 100 cities bypassing Congress is a conservative value?

Not sure you could be able to recognize a conservative principle so explaining to you is moot.

 

[Brent W]

So you say.

He was appointed by George W. Bush. If you choose to believe he isn't a conservative Judge, that is you spinning your bias to fit your view, in my opinion. I am very happy to let others who do not have this bias come to their own conclusion and will not try to open the blinds anymore with you.

The number of cities is irrelevant. What we should be concerned in a greater way about is 100 cities intentionally ignoring the law openly.

Then have that conversation. Don't try to right a wrong with another wrong. This isn't grade school this is adult life. You solve problems instead of creating more. Withholding funding to that many cities will create more problems than your initial problem, while hurting U.S. Citizens. This is why the Judge blocked the order.

Not sure you could be able to recognize a conservative principle so explaining to you is moot.

Can you not explain to me why you support a President, without Congress support, pulling money from over 100 cities because he disagrees with their enforcement, or lack-there-of, of his Justice Departments orders?

Cheap petty remarks about my ability to understand Conservative values only undermines your comments in this debate, not mine.

 

[Yeshua1]

It appears Trump has had 100 days of mostly defeat, not accomplishments.
----------------------------------------------------------------

A federal judge blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions on Tuesday, just as the White House was looking for victories to celebrate from the president’s first 100 days in office.

Trump’s order was challenged by the city and county of San Francisco and the county of Santa Clara, California, two of the jurisdictions under presidential fire for limiting their cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Tuesday’s legal setback is yet another defeat for Trump, whose executive orders, particularly those related to immigration, have met resistance in the courts. U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued a nationwide preliminary injunction blocking the order’s enforcement, effectively preventing the administration from pulling federal funds from the sanctuary jurisdictions that sued and others that may likewise feel their federal funding is at risk if they don’t go along with Trump’s anti-immigrant policies.

“The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds,” wrote Orrick, who was nominated to the court by then-President Barack Obama. “Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves,” Orrick added.

The judge held that the executive order, which Trump signed during his first week on the job, is likely unconstitutional because it is too vague and would likely deprive the localities of monies that are rightly theirs, which would violate the Fifth Amendment. The judge also said the order likely violates the 10th Amendment and the separation of powers.

Judge Blocks Donald Trump's Executive Order On Sanctuary Cities | The Huffington Post

Same Judge gave 200,000 to Obama campaign, help raised up another 35,000. so he is impartial than?

 

[Brent W]

Same Judge gave 200,000 to Obama campaign, help raised up another 35,000. so he is impartial than?

It brings it into question, certainly. However partisan he may be, I believe it was the correct ruling for the reasons I list above. Trump is out of control with his unilateral moves and needs to be checked. That is my view and if it takes the Supreme Court to do it then I am ok with that. These decisions he is making on his own affect millions of peoples lives.

 

[Yeshua1]

It brings it into question, certainly. However partisan he may be, I believe it was the correct ruling for the reasons I list above. Trump is out of control with his unilateral moves and needs to be checked. That is my view and if it takes the Supreme Court to do it then I am ok with that. These decisions he is making on his own affect millions of peoples lives.

There is NO right to be here illegal, nor to be afforded protextion while commiting crimes, correct?
And the AG also has the right to not fund the specific 3 grants in play here, so just grandtanding by the Judge!

 

[Brent W]

There is NO right to be here illegal, nor to be afforded protextion while commiting crimes, correct?
And the AG also has the right to not fund the specific 3 grants in play here, so just grandtanding by the Judge!

And the Supreme Court will hopefully come to your conclusion. Until then, I am more than happy to have this looked at further considering how rogue this President has been with his power.

 

[Revmitchell]

He was appointed by George W. Bush. If you choose to believe he isn't a conservative Judge, that is you spinning your bias to fit your view, in my opinion. I am very happy to let others who do not have this bias come to their own conclusion and will not try to open the blinds anymore with you.

That doesn't make them conservative. In fact Bush was little to no conservative. He was a big spender and very liberal on a great many things. Who they are appointed by is not pure evidence of their being conservative or liberal.

Then have that conversation. Don't try to right a wrong with another wrong. This isn't grade school this is adult life. You solve problems instead of creating more. Withholding funding to that many cities will create more problems than your initial problem, while hurting U.S. Citizens. This is why the Judge blocked the order.

Withholding funds is to blame on those who are not obeying the laws. Not the agency demanding laws be obeyed.

Can you not explain to me why you support a President, without Congress support, pulling money from over 100 cities because he disagrees with their enforcement, or lack-there-of, of his Justice Departments orders?

100 cities is irrelevant. Whether it is one city or 100 the way in which it is handled should be the same. It is not his justice department. It is the law of the land which was in place long before his justice department.

Cheap petty remarks about my ability to understand Conservative values only undermines your comments in this debate, not mine.

Wasn't intended as a shot just stating a fact. I am not sure you could recognize a conservative principle. I have not seen anything of you that would let me know you understand them.