Judge Gives Trump Big Win in Fight Against Sanctuary Cities
- Western Journal
- Stephen Beyer
- July 15, 2019
A federal appeals court ruled last week that the Trump administration is well within its rights to reward cities who cooperate with ICE, specifically involving deportations.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Friday that the Trump administration could reward cities with grant money if they cooperate with ICE or use the funds to beef up emigration enforcement, The Washington Times reported.
The city of Los Angeles sued the administration, claiming it was being treated unfairly and felt as if it was being coerced into helping ICE. The city said it missed out on $3 million in grant money because Los Angeles didn’t give ICE access to local jails and failed to focus on illegal immigration on an application, The Hill reported.
The grants mentioned are known as the Community Oriented Policing Services grants, which were created in 1994 to give extra money to local authorities to put more police officers in local communities.
However, in a 2-1 decision, the federal appeals court dismissed the city of Los Angeles’ claim and asserted the Trump administration isn’t coercing anyone.
“The panel rejected Los Angeles’s argument that DOJ’s practice of giving additional consideration to applicants that choose to further the two specified federal goals violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause,” George W. Bush appointee Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote.
“The panel held that DOJ did not exceed its statutory authority in awarding bonus points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area or that agreed to the Certification,” she added.
White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said, “This ruling reverses a lawless decision that enabled sanctuary city policies, putting the safety and security of all Americans in harm’s way.”
While previous attempts have been made to withhold money from grant programs who fail to comply with ICE, this is the first time a court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s attempt to reward cities who comply, The Washington Times reported.
Ikuta said, “Los Angeles may believe that addressing illegal immigration is not the most effective way to improve public safety, but the wisdom of DOJ’s policy is not an element of our arbitrary and capricious review.”
Read the article HERE including video.
City of Los Angeles v AG Barr – Court of Appeals Opinion
The panel reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the City of Los Angeles.
The panel held that the appeal was not moot because although there was no longer a live controversy regarding the 2017 grant program, the situation was capable of repetition yet evading review. The panel also held that Los Angeles had Article III standing to bring the appeal.
The panel rejected Los Angeles’s argument that DOJ’s practice of giving additional consideration to applicants that choose to further the two specified federal goals violated the Constitution’s Spending Clause. Because DOJ’s scoring factors encouraged, but did not coerce, an applicant to cooperate on immigration matters, the panel also rejected Los Angeles’s claims that DOJ’s use of the factors infringed on state autonomy in a manner that raised Tenth Amendment concerns.
The panel held that DOJ did not exceed its statutory authority in awarding bonus points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area or that agreed to the Certification.
- Specifically, the panel first held that DOJ’s understanding that illegal immigration presents a public safety issue has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court.
- Second, DOJ’s determination that the techniques of community policing may be used to address this public safety issue was entirely reasonable.
- Finally, because Congress did not directly address the precise question at issue, the panel must defer to DOJ’s interpretation as long as it is reasonable.
In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA), Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, to provide a range of federal assistance to state and local law enforcement. The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1807 (the Act), which was enacted as part of the VCCLEA, authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer a competitive grant program that allocates a limited pool of funds to state and local applicants whose applications are approved by the Attorney General.
HR 3355 Introduced by Dem. Rep. Jack Brooks (TX). Signed into law by Bill Clinton. Co-sponsored by Chuck Schumer. Voted for by Pelosi, Feinstein, and Biden and other Democrats of today. Approved by wide margins — Senate 61/38 and House 235/195. The 103rd Session held by Democrat Party in both House and Senate.
November 2014: Yale Law Journal — “Agency Enforcement of Spending Clause Statutes: A Defense of the Funding Cut-Off,” Eloise Pasachoff
“If agencies and their grantees cannot reach an agreement through persuasion and other informal means, agencies have a powerful formal tool at their disposal: they can cut off funds to the offending grantee until the grantee complies. This tool can be very effective.”
March 2017: Congressional Research Service — “The Federal Government’s Authority to Impose Conditions on Grant Funds”
The Supreme Court has articulated certain limitations on the exercise of this power. In its 1987 decision in South Dakota v. Dole, which arguably remains the leading case regarding the use of the federal government’s conditional spending power,the Court held that legislation enacted pursuant to the Spending Clause must be in pursuit of the “general welfare.”
In addition, the Dole Court held that any conditions attached to the receipt of federal funds must:
(1) be unambiguously established so that recipients can knowingly accept or reject them;
(2) be germane to the federal interest in the particular national projects or programs to which the money is directed;
(3) not violate other provisions of the Constitution, such as the First Amendment or the Due Process or Takings Clauses of the Fifth Amendment; and
(4) not cross the line from enticement to impermissible coercion, such that states have no real choice but to accept the funding and enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
The fourth of these criteria, in particular, is intended to ensure that any conditions on federal grant funds do not run afoul of the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on the federal government’s “commandeering” of state or local governments or officials by requiring them to carry out federal programs.
Boy it must really bite when all the laws that are currently under siege in courts against the Trump administration were submitted, approved, and signed into law thanks to the DEMOCRATS. Talk about hypocrites. It also must doubly chap their hides when they went to such lengths to find a sympathetic judge to only be shot down in Appeals Court.
NOW REMOVE THE JUDGE who they found so sympathetic he chose to ignore the letter of the law he is supposed to uphold.
Voting “yea” on these never was held against any president until Trump even the 1996 Act as contentious as it was at the time was finally passed and even though challenged occasionally, never was pursued to this agree on later presidents, especially Obama when he crossed the line.
Democrats OWN Collusion, Corruption, Treason at the highest levels of congress and judiciary system now.