Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Attempt To Withhold Funding From Sanctuary Cities

Orrick raised a significant amount of money for President Barack Obama, after which Obama appointed him District Judge for Northern California. Given the limited scope of his easily circumvented ruling, Orrick seems to have chosen to make a pointless political statement. Perhaps the Executive Order (EO) itself, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States” was also a political statement, to the extent that it seeks to assume the authority of federal funding to states. Additionally, it is more a shot across the bows to all sanctuary cities in the country.

The President’s reaction – as usual – came in the form of a tweet: "First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Of course, President Trump’s tweet requires some clarification; Orrick is a District Judge and does not sit on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Congress ultimately holds the federal purse strings and could withhold funding to sanctuary jurisdictions through legislation. Despite the president’s threat, it seems unlikely that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) would hear this case. District Court cases go to the appropriate Appeals Court – in this case, the Ninth Circuit, where the outcome is predictable. Waiting for this case to make its way to the nation’s highest court – and assuming SCOTUS even decides to hear arguments –  is a long and unnecessary path to the president’s goal. Congress could incorporate a requirement for sanctuary cities to comply with federal immigration law or lose federal funding into future legislation on tax or healthcare reform.

According to court documents, “[the federal government] explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President’s ‘bully pulpit’ to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement.” The ruling that blocks this Executive Order is equally symbolic, as it does not prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from operating within the two jurisdictions that challenged the President’s action. It merely challenges the Executive Order’s broad language regarding the withholding of federal funds.

From the Executive Order itself, Section 2, paragraph (c): “Ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law;”

The Trump administration and congressional Republicans are coming under increasing fire for the real – or perceived – failure to deliver on election pledges. This EO may well have been timed to draw the public’s attention back to one of Candidate Trump’s dearest promises; to solve the illegal immigration problem and deport those who are already here illegally.

The Order is – if you will – a statement of intent. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer described Judge Orrick’s ruling as an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge." He went on to say that sanctuary cities were “putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens." Setting the stage for what will, undoubtedly, become one of the biggest battles of the President’s first term, Spicer stated that officials in sanctuary jurisdictions "have the blood of dead Americans on their hands."

No doubt the administration could have anticipated a legal challenge to this order. The stage seems set for a fight that might well rally Trump supporters around what is perhaps the most important domestic policy issue – to them. The situation shows Trump’s populism at work; the EO was red meat for the Deplorables. Those who support sanctuary cities may quickly find themselves on the wrong end of public opinion.