Court sides with Trump in 'sanctuary cities' grant fight

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/co...ht/ar-BB10qBef


NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants to force states to cooperate with U.S. immigration enforcement, a federal appeals court in New York ruled Wednesday in a decision that conflicted with three other federal appeals courts.
. New York is considered a 'sanctuary city' for undocumented immigrants, and ICE receives little or no cooperation from local law enforcement. ICE said that officers arrested 225 people for violation of immigration laws during the 6-day operation, the largest in New York City in recent years. (Photo by John Moore/Getty Images)
The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan overturned a lower court's decision ordering the administration to release funding to New York City and seven states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island.

The states and city sued the U.S. government after the Justice Department announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from cities and states until they gave federal immigration authorities access to jails and provide advance notice when someone in the country illegally is about to be released.
Before the change, cities and states seeking grant money were required only to show they were not preventing local law enforcement from communicating with federal authorities about the immigration status of people who were detained.
At the time, then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions said: “So-called ‘sanctuary’ policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.”
The 2nd Circuit said the plain language of relevant laws make clear that the U.S. attorney general can impose conditions on states and municipalities receiving money.
And it noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly observed that the federal government maintains broad power over states when it comes to immigration policies.
In the past two years, federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco have ruled against the federal government by upholding lower-court injunctions placed on the enforcement of some or all of the challenged conditions.
The appeals rulings pertain to the issuance of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
Created in 2006, it is the vehicle through which Congress annually dispenses over $250 million in federal funding for state and local criminal justice efforts.
The Byrne Program was named for New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne, who at age 22 was shot to death while guarding the home of a Guyanese immigrant cooperating with authorities investigating drug trafficking.


This will, of course, be appealled to the SC - which has been sympathetic to federal control of immigration. Bodes poorly for "sanctuary cities" .

BTW - mayor DeBloviate from NYC will be on Hannity tonight - it should be fun watching his head explode.

9500 or ftw have anything constructive - other than bleating for Open Borders and universal welfare to the entire world?????

I'm not sure withholding funds is a good way to deal with sanctuary cities.. you only "punish" the residents, forcing more crime on them then they already have.

it's like sanctions on Venezuela or Cuba.. North Korea. the people there suffer for the sins of the Government.

it's too easy to say "throw out your leaders then".. sure there is an election every 2-4 years, but if you are in the, say, 40-45% that oppose sanctuary cities, you still lose, and your city suffers.

The amusing thing about grants is that they simply replace local funding that local govts divert elsewhere.
Perhaps all federal grants could be terminated, which would save the fed budget. The local and state govts could raise their taxes if they wish.

Seriously, all grants have conditions. If recipient doesn't like the conditions, they dont have to apply for grants.

There's a huge difference between changing requirements after grant is issued vs. requirements existing before grant is applied for.

The news reporter has totally failed to explore and write up that part of issue, which issue is clearly in the earlier court cases.

I'm not sure withholding funds is a good way to deal with sanctuary cities.. you only "punish" the residents, forcing more crime on them then they already have.

it's like sanctions on Venezuela or Cuba.. North Korea. the people there suffer for the sins of the Government.

it's too easy to say "throw out your leaders then".. sure there is an election every 2-4 years, but if you are in the, say, 40-45% that oppose sanctuary cities, you still lose, and your city suffers. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

uh NO. Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities.



Poll: Americans overwhelmingly oppose sanctuary cities

https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...nctuary-cities
'Sanctuary Cities' Get A Big Thumbs Down, Even From Hispanics: IBD/TIPP Poll

https://www.investors.com/politics/s...tion-lawsuits/




clearly those polls caused much heartburn at that "unbiased" source politifact .. they "questioned" the questions .. brilliant!



https://www.politifact.com/article/2...cans-oppose-s/


so what's your solution? do nothing? the rule of law is clear, no state law or ordinances can conflict with federal law and immigration policy falls under the executive branch .. despite what Nancy Pants and Chucky think. or AOC.

leftist anti-americans have to be brought to heel

Winning!

Whinings!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1a9_story.html


1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee

After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.

Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.


In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.

Trump’s mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court — where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump — could eventually hear that case.
The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Obama’s first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.

Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.
Trump got what I believe is his win from the notoriously liberal 9th circuit court of appeals where he has put 10 justices. A win for Trump in Nov. and there will be few liberals left on courts for a generation.

Whinings! Originally Posted by HoeHummer

Don't you always? We expect nothing less.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...1a9_story.html


1 in every 4 circuit court judges is now a Trump appointee

After three years in office, President Trump has remade the federal judiciary, ensuring a conservative tilt for decades and cementing his legacy no matter the outcome of November’s election.

Trump nominees make up 1 in 4 U.S. circuit court judges. Two of his picks sit on the Supreme Court. And this past week, as the House voted to impeach the president, the Republican-led Senate confirmed an additional 13 district court judges.


In total, Trump has installed 187 judges to the federal bench.

Trump’s mark on the judiciary is already having far-reaching effects on legislation and liberal priorities. Just last week, the 5th Circuit struck down a core provision of the Affordable Care Act. One of the two appellate judges who ruled against the landmark law was a Trump appointee.

The Supreme Court — where two of the nine justices are conservatives selected by Trump — could eventually hear that case.
The 13 circuit courts are the second most powerful in the nation, serving as a last stop for appeals on lower court rulings, unless the case is taken up by the Supreme Court. So far, Trump has appointed 50 judges to circuit court benches. Comparatively, by this point in President Obama’s first term, he had confirmed 25. At the end of his eight years, he had appointed 55 circuit judges.

Trump’s appointments have flipped three circuit courts to majority GOP-appointed judges, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in New York. The president has also selected younger conservatives for these lifetime appointments, ensuring his impact is felt for many years.
Trump got what I believe is his win from the notoriously liberal 9th circuit court of appeals where he has put 10 justices. A win for Trump in Nov. and there will be few liberals left on courts for a generation.



Originally Posted by HedonistForever

wapo writes this

but a couple years ago now when trump complained about liberal judges, , he was met with umbrage by these same types, "how dare you accuse judges of political bias!!"

Hyocrisy !! - without it the Fascist DPST's would be Silent!
hey wtf- let's hear your support for the corona virus epidemic in America.
Anything - even a decimated America for political aims!!!!

Hyocrisy !! - without it the Fascist DPST's would be Silent!
hey wtf- let's hear your support for the corona virus epidemic in America.
Anything - even a decimated America for political aims!!!! Originally Posted by oeb11

wtf is a truly depraved individual.

wtf is a truly depraved individual. Originally Posted by oeb11

Originally Posted by WTF

pete and repete