In yet another infuriating case of what many on the MAGA side of politics see as out of control judicial tyranny that is blocking the executive branch and federal government generally from enforcing American immigration law, U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco, who was appointed by former President Obama, blocked Trump from cutting funding to sanctuary cities.
As background, the Trump DOJ has designated 30 jurisdictions as “sanctuary” ones because they refused to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement efforts, primarily by restricting their local police forces from working with the feds. Trump, to counteract that, issued executive orders demanding that their funding be cut until they start working with the federal government/
Attacking those orders in a ruling, Judge Orrick declared from his bench in San Francisco, that the administration was barred from imposing conditions on grant programs that provide funding “for a variety of critical needs.” He claimed that cutting off funding to unrelated programs unless cities go along with immigration enforcement is a “coercive threat” that is “unconstitutional.”
In the ruling, the activist judge declared, describing why he enjoined the funding cuts, “I determined that the Cities and Counties are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that defendants’ actions with respect to the enjoined executive orders and related agency directives were unconstitutional violations of the separation of powers and spending clause doctrines and violated the Fifth Amendment, Tenth Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act.”
He later declared, explaining why the federal funding cuts are being blocked, “The challenged sections of Executive Orders 14,159 and 14,218, and the executive actions that have parroted them threaten to withhold all federal funding from the plaintiffs as sanctuary jurisdictions if they do not adapt their policies and practices to conform with the Trump administration’s preferences.”
Continuing, and adding his bit about them being coercive and thus unconstitutional, he said, “That coercive threat (and any actions agencies take to realize that threat, or additional Executive Orders the President issues to the same end) is unconstitutional, so I enjoined its effect. I do so again today for the protection of the new parties in this case.”
The far-left judge further declared that, “Defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with them, are enjoined from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds based on . . . any other Executive Order or Government action that poses the same coercive threat to eliminate or suspend federal funding based on the Government’s assertion that a jurisdiction is a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction.’”
"*" indicates required fields
He added that this is true regardless of whether “the basis that the jurisdiction has policies that limit (i) the honoring of civil immigration detainer requests; (ii) cooperation with administrative warrants for purposes of immigration enforcement; (iii) the sharing of information with federal immigration authorities other than immigration or citizenship status; (iv) the use of local law enforcement to arrest or detain individuals solely for civil immigration violations; or (v) the use of local resources to assist with civil immigration enforcement activities.”
Watch Pam Bondi vow to keep up the campaign against sanctuary cities here: