Appeals court rules Donald Trump can withhold Federal funding from sanctuary cities

  It is hard to keep track of all the lawsuits Democrats have pending on virtually everything Donald Trump has tried to do as President. In some cases there are multiple lawsuits against the same issue. One such case is the issue of Donald Trump withholding Federal funding from cities which refuse to cooperate with Federal immigration laws.

  Back in 2017 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against Los Angeles and stated the President was within his authority to withhold Federal money from sanctuary cities if they did not comply with Federal immigration laws, and today the Second Circuit Court of Appeals handed the President an even bigger victory on sanctuary cities in a lawsuit filed by seven states and New York City.

  Here is more:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that the Department of Justice (DOJ) could withhold funding from cities and states that refuse to cooperate with the Trump administration’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants.

A three-judge panel on the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously overturned a district court judge’s ruling that the department lacked the authority to impose immigration-related conditions on certain funding.

The panel’s opinion, written by Judge Reena Raggi, found that Congress had delegated authority to the attorney general to set conditions on the federal grant program it had created, called the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.

“Repeatedly and throughout its pronouncement of Byrne Program statutory requirements, Congress makes clear that a grant applicant demonstrates qualification by satisfying statutory requirements in such form and according to such rules as the Attorney General establishes,” wrote Raggi, who was appointed to the court by George W. Bush. “This confers considerable authority on the Attorney General.”

  So basically the panel ruled that if a state must meet requirements in order to recieve grant money the administration has the right to make sure the state is meeting those requirements and if it is not it is not entitled to the money. In other words the administration has the right to enforce the conditions of a bargain it makes with the states. This seems more than obvious to me and these lawsuits should have been thrown out in the first place so this decision was a long time coming but finally common sense seems to be prevailing.

malo periculosam libertatem quam quietum servitium