By Sara Randazzo, Laura Meckler and Alejandro Lazo
A federal judge in San Francisco ruled that President Donald
Trump's executive order threatening to pull funding from so-called
sanctuary cities is likely unconstitutional, delivering a fresh
legal blow to the administration's immigration crackdown.
Under the nationwide preliminary injunction issued by U.S.
District Judge William Orrick, the administration cannot deny
federal grants to jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with
federal authorities on immigration, as it has threatened. The
ruling is a win for the two northern California jurisdictions that
filed the suit, San Francisco and Santa Clara county, but more
broadly for local officials who are battling the administration
over its stepped up efforts to deport more people living in the
U.S. illegally.
In his order, Judge Orrick said the plaintiffs successfully
proved they are likely to face immediate, irreparable harm absent
court action. He said the executive order threatens to "deprive the
counties of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants that
support core services" and creates budget uncertainty.
There is no definition of a sanctuary city, and local policies
vary, but they all limit in some way cooperation with federal
immigration enforcement.
The Trump administration has said that for purposes of federal
grant eligibility, it was defining the term narrowly, but the court
cited statements by administration officials in concluding that a
broad crackdown on uncooperative local communities was at
issue.
As such, Judge Orrick said the executive order likely violates
the constitutional separation of powers, as well as the Fifth
Amendment right to due process and 10th Amendment prohibition on
commandeering local jurisdictions to carry out federal law.
"The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the
president, so the order cannot constitutionally place new
conditions on federal funds," the judge wrote.
That said, he acknowledged that granting the preliminary
injunction doesn't block the Trump administration from enforcing
existing conditions of federal grants, or developing regulations
around or defining what makes a sanctuary jurisdiction.
The Trump administration plans to appeal the ruling, White House
Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told reporters Tuesday. "The idea
that an agency can't put in some reasonable restrictions on how
some of these moneys are spent is something that will be overturned
eventually," he said. "We'll win at the Supreme Court at some
point."
The president's January executive order requires U.S. officials
to ensure that sanctuary cities "are not eligible to receive
federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement
purposes." The order doesn't specify what types of federal funds
might be withheld.
Lawyers defending the order recently said in court that it only
applies to a limited number of grants offered through the
Department of Homeland Security and the Justice Department, and
that most of San Francisco and Santa Clara County's federal funding
wouldn't be affected. Rather than focus on constitutional
arguments, the Justice Department asserted that neither San
Francisco nor Santa Clara had legal standing to bring the case.
The two jurisdictions argued that the Trump administration has
put forth conflicting rhetoric on which funds are at risk under the
Trump policy.
Judge Orrick agreed, saying the language of the order attempts
to reach all grants, not just the limited number mentioned by
Justice Department lawyers in court.
Public comments from the Trump administration have also confused
the issue, Judge Orrick said. "The president has called it 'a
weapon' to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his
preferred policies of immigration enforcement," he wrote.
Judge Orrick questioned whether the order is "merely a
rhetorical device" or a weapon, concluding that "The result of this
schizophrenic approach to the Order is that the Counties' worst
fears are not allayed and the Counties reasonably fear enforcement
under the Order."
This is the second Trump immigration initiative in which judges
have used the president's own words in striking down his policies.
In the case of a controversial ban on travel to the U.S. by people
from several nations, administration lawyers had argued it was
narrowly crafted, but a federal judge cited Mr. Trump's earlier,
sweeping call for a ban on Muslims entering the country.
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said Tuesday, "This
is why we have courts -- to halt the overreach of a president and
an attorney general who either don't understand the Constitution or
chose to ignore it." San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee called the ruling a
relief, as the city is in the middle of its budget planning, and
the ruling provided clarity.
James Williams, the county counsel for Santa Clara, said the
court's decision is "an affirmation of the basic principles of
federalism and the separation of powers that our founders put in
place, and it makes absolutely clear that the president cannot use
Congress's spending power to threaten and coerce states and local
government to adapt his agenda."
The Trump administration has taken the position that its
crackdown on sanctuary cities has been limited and narrow. The only
action taken so far directed at these cities and counties is to
require that they affirm they are complying with a law requiring
that they let local officials communicate with federal authorities
about immigration matters.
Compliance with that law is already a condition of certain
grants, and the judge acknowledged that granting the preliminary
injunction doesn't block the administration from enforcing existing
conditions of federal grants.
A Justice Department spokesman reiterated Tuesday that "it will
follow the law with respect to regulation of sanctuary
jurisdictions" and continue to enforce existing policies. The
spokesman also said the order doesn't purport to hinder the
agency's ability to "enforce the requirements of federal law
applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or
federal grant conditions."
Tuesday's ruling suggests that any effort by the administration
to tie other grant funding to immigration cooperation could be
problematic.
Separately, a delegation of mayors met with Attorney General
Jeff Sessions in Washington on Tuesday in an effort to get a
clearer definition of what a sanctuary city is. Afterward, mayors
said Mr. Sessions defined it narrowly -- just as the government did
in court -- as a jurisdiction that violates a section of law known
as 1373, which seeks to assure that local officials aren't barred
from communicating with federal immigration authorities.
"They said, we believe a sanctuary city is a city that willfully
violates 1373," New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said after the
meeting. Cities say they are in compliance with this statute, so
there is no reason to think that their funding would be cut if that
is the definition the administration plans to use in defining
sanctuaries.
But Mr. Landrieu said the attorney general didn't rule out the
possibility that his agency would try to tie grant funding to a
requirement that cities honor "detainers," which means holding in
jail people who federal authorities want to process for possible
deportation.
Many jurisdictions won't honor these detainers, citing court
rulings that have found doing so violates the suspect's
constitutional rights.
Write to Sara Randazzo at sara.randazzo@wsj.com, Laura Meckler
at laura.meckler@wsj.com and Alejandro Lazo at
alejandro.lazo@wsj.com
(END) Dow Jones Newswires
April 25, 2017 20:22 ET (00:22 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2017 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.