The lower courts have gone too far. They believe they can take on President Trump.
That’s why an Obama judge went rogue with this decision to handcuff the Trump administration.
Activist Obama-Appointed Judge Halts Trump’s Sanctuary City Funding Crackdown
An Obama-appointed judge ruled late Friday that the Trump administration could not deny federal funds to dozens of cities and counties over their sanctuary policies. U.S. District Judge William Orrick, appointed to the bench in northern California by President Barack Obama, extended a preliminary injunction that blocks the Trump administration from withholding or conditioning federal funds from jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, according to court documents.
The lawsuit, originally filed by San Francisco officials earlier this year, has since taken on many other sanctuary jurisdictions as plaintiffs. “The new plaintiffs have each alleged similar reliance on federal funding as the Cities and Counties and filed declarations showing similar harms to community health, welfare and social services and to their budgetary processes that depend on the regularly authorized grants of federal funding for a variety of critical needs,” Orrick stated, according to court documents.
“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,” the judge continued.
“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.”
This Obama-appointed judge has consistently ruled against the Trump administration’s quest to end sanctuary policies across the country, shielding havens for illegal immigrants from rightful enforcement.
In April, Orrick deemed President Donald Trump’s executive orders cracking down on sanctuary cities to be likely unconstitutional, blocking his administration from enforcing them against a slate of liberal enclaves that were suing. “Here we are again,” the judge wrote in the April order, referring to a previous executive order Trump signed in his first presidential term seeking to defund sanctuary cities — an order that Orrick also shot down at the time.
In 2017, Trump signed Executive Order 13,768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” a directive that sought to block federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Following a court challenge by San Francisco, Orrick ruled the order to be unconstitutional and that the defendants “faced irreparable harm absent an injunction,” according to court documents.
There is no official definition for a “sanctuary city” law or policy, but the label generally describes any policy for law that restricts local officials from assisting or otherwise cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or other federal immigration agents. Typical sanctuary policies prohibit local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests, sharing information with the agency or notifying immigration agents of an impending release of a wanted illegal migrant.
These rogue policies have long enabled criminals to evade deportation, putting American citizens at risk while draining taxpayer dollars. Much like his first term, Trump has ratcheted up pressure against sanctuary cities, which have served as a major hindrance against his immigration enforcement agenda.
Immediately upon his return to office, the president signed an executive order directing the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security to deny certain federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions. The DOJ has since maintained a list of cities, counties and states it deems to be sanctuary havens for illegal migrants.
Democrat leaders have sued elsewhere to block the anti-sanctuary directives, desperate to protect their open-border allies. A lawsuit, filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court, alleges that the Office for Victims of Crime — an office within the DOJ — created a policy that withholds Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) funding from states that are not assisting with Trump’s mission to crack down on illegal immigration. A coalition of Democrat attorneys general claims these “unprecedented conditions” tying VOCA funds to immigration enforcement to be unlawful.
The Trump administration has repeatedly voiced frustration with these one-off lower court federal judges who single-handedly derail fair and legal executive decisions through nationwide injunctions, allowing activist jurists to impose their liberal agendas on the entire country.
Officials argue that such rulings encourage forum-shopping, where plaintiffs cherry-pick sympathetic judges in left-leaning districts to block national policies, undermining the democratic process and the will of the American people who elected Trump to secure the borders.
This pattern of judicial overreach has plagued Trump’s agenda, with lower courts issuing over 35 nationwide injunctions against his orders in the past, only for higher courts like the Supreme Court to intervene and limit these abuses, as seen in recent rulings that stripped away the power of lone judges to halt executive actions nationwide.
The administration contends that these injunctions politicize the judiciary and prevent the proper enforcement of laws aimed at protecting American communities from the dangers posed by unchecked illegal immigration.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
