Skip to content

Federal Judge blocks Donald Trump’s Executive Order halting federal funding of sanctuary cities

November 21, 2017

  Today a Federal Judge has blocked Donald Trump’s Executive Order which would have halted Federal monies being sent to sanctuary cities. Here is more on the decision:

A federal judge on Monday permanently blocked President Donald Trump’s executive order to cut funding from cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick rejected the administration’s argument that the executive order applies only to a relatively small pot of money and said Trump cannot set new conditions on spending approved by Congress.

The judge had previously made the same arguments in a ruling that put a temporary hold on the executive order targeting so-called sanctuary cities. 

The Trump administration will challenge the ruling:

The Trump administration has appealed that decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

“The District Court exceeded its authority today when it barred the President from instructing his cabinet members to enforce existing law,” Department of Justice spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement late Monday. “The Justice Department will vindicate the President’s lawful authority to direct the executive branch.”

  This is not going to be a popular opinion here but I have to agree with the argument the judge used in this ruling. I have always been against governing through Executive Order. The “Barack Obama did it too” defense is not a defense and the Congress has already approved this money, it is too late to stop the money which was already allotted.

  But that does not mean future money cannot be withheld from sanctuary cities the next time the budget comes up for debate. When deciding how to dole out money at that time the Congress should do its job and put the proper restrictions on sanctuary cities in place as a condition for accepting Federal money.

  That would be the proper way to go about this but I think we all know the Congress will not have the courage to do it. I give Donald Trump credit for putting his money where his mouth is, I just wish the Congress had the same amount of courage…

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium

18 Comments leave one →
  1. November 21, 2017 8:46 pm

    Even if Congress changes the rules, it still might not pass Constitutional muster. There is already precedent saying that the Federal government can’t just change the conditions on funds. It is the same ruling that got parts of the ACA struck.

    Liked by 2 people

    • November 22, 2017 6:26 am

      Interesting. What I meant was that the Congress should pass a law banning money going to sanctuary cities before passing the budget. I clearly did not write it that way.

      Liked by 2 people

      • November 22, 2017 7:23 am

        I’m not a lawyer but I think they would have to grandfather all the current programs… or stack the courts with unqualified judicial activists 🤔

        Liked by 2 people

      • November 22, 2017 11:50 am

        If Reps (?, who do they represent?) in Congress were on the “up and up” they’re do what’s right … oh, hmmm, what “is” “right” again? And “there” ‘is’ the problem, redefining right from what use to be ‘known’ as “error” or “corruption”.

        Liked by 1 person

      • November 22, 2017 7:39 pm

        You could be right about that Terrant, I guess it would depend on if there are sunset clauses in the programs.
        As for the judges, perhaps you forgot I actually agreed with this decision. 😉


  2. November 21, 2017 11:56 pm

    Sanctuary cities are not constitutional, so how can federal money be spent by them?

    “The sanctuary policies implemented by cities such as San Francisco and Seattle also seek to nullify federal immigration law and obstruct its enforcement. 8 U.S.C. §1373 prohibits states and local jurisdictions from preventing their law enforcement officials from exchanging information with federal officials on the citizenship status of individuals they have arrested or detained. The Supreme Court upheld this provision in 2012 in Arizona v. United States.”

    Liked by 2 people

  3. November 22, 2017 12:09 am

    The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives February 21, 2001

    Executive Orders have a legitimate purpose. While the Heritage report is a little old it is still a good read and has much relevance to today.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Brittius permalink
    November 22, 2017 5:12 am

    Reblogged this on Brittius.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. November 22, 2017 1:21 pm

    This is a helpful comment of warning

    Most of the time I don’t even look at the comments because the ‘viper shills and trolls’ are too disgusting and a waste (💩) of time. But they do provide an “example” of what is coming against our freedoms and liberties (God given). The Nimrod mentality of enslavement and ruin. The corrupt’s def of freedom: Free dumbs. And that’s who might just be the ones in Congress supposedly “representing” We The People! ha.

    Liked by 1 person

    • November 22, 2017 7:46 pm

      I stay “neutral” on the net neutrality because I don’t know enough about it and I think both sides throw quite a bit of disinformation out there. This is an interesting Tweet by Assange, thanks for sharing it.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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

%d bloggers like this: