April 25, 2017
Federal Judge William Orrick III, who on Tuesday blocked President Trump’s order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.
Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president’s plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal immigrants.
The ruling from U.S. District Judge William Orrick III in San Francisco said that Trump’s order targeted broad categories of federal funding for sanctuary governments, and that plaintiffs challenging the order were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
The decision will block the measure for now, while the federal lawsuit works its way through the courts.
The news comes on the heels of the Department of Justice threatening on Friday to cut off funding to eight so-called “sanctuary cities,” unless they were able to provide proof to the federal government that they weren’t looking the other way when it came to undocumented immigrants.
The same judge issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.
Orrick, 63, also raised money for the failed presidential bid of then-Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) in 2004.
In 2015, President Obama vowed to veto legislation that would have cracked down on sanctuary cities.
Judicial Watch also reported that Obama’s justice department granted more than $340 million to sanctuary municipalities as of 2016.
JUDGE RULES AGAINST TRUMP ORDER BLOCKING FUNDS TO SANCTUARY CITIES
Sanctuaries ‘have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic,’ Trump’s order states
Apr 25, 2017 by Adan Salazar
A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s executive order blocking federal funds from going to “sanctuary cities” Tuesday.
In a ruling affecting cities nationwide, US District Judge William Orrick of the Northern District of California sided with the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, both of whom had previously objected to federal funds being restricted on the basis of refusing to enforce federal immigration law.
“Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves,” the Obama-appointed district judge wrote.
President Trump’s executive order in January claimed its intent was to “enhance public safety in the interior of the United States,” and charged sanctuary jurisdictions with “willfully violating federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.”
“These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic,” Trump’s order stated.
However, Judge Orrick ruled the jurisdictions had sufficiently demonstrated the order could cause “immediate irreparable harm” and that they feared the order would result in “budget uncertainty.”
The jurisdictions, Judge Orrick wrote, showed they are “currently suffering irreparable harm,” and “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language.”
“The Counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the Executive Order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor,” the judge stated.
Orrick said the order’s “plain language” was too far-reaching as to attempt to include “all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing.”
“And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments,” the judge added. “The President has called it ‘a weapon’ to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his preferred policies of immigration enforcement, and his press secretary has reiterated that the President intends to ensure that ‘counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cities don’t get federal government funding in compliance with the executive order.’”
Judge Orrick’s ruling “does not block the government from enforcing conditions on federal grants nor does it block the government from creating a definition of sanctuary jurisdictions,” reported CNN.
San Francisco was the site of the high-profile case in 2015 where five-time deported Mexican illegal alien Juan Francisco Lopez-Sanchez fatally shot 32-year-old resident Kate Steinle.
The death led to the introduction of the “Kate’s Law” legislation, which would impose a 5-year mandatory minimum prison sentence “for an alien who re-enters after being excluded, denied admission, deported, or removed.”
Trump slams sanctuary city ruling, says opponents are ‘judge shopping!’
April 26, 2017 By Cody Derespina
President Trump on Wednesday accused political opponents of “judge shopping” in their bid to block some of his signature executive orders and vowed to take his case to the Supreme Court – after a federal judge blocked his attempt to cut off sanctuary city funding.
That ruling, and another suspending his ban on travel from certain majority-Muslim countries, both involved federal judges in California. The San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in February upheld a Hawaii judge’s ruling against the travel ban. A District Court judge also based in northern California said Tuesday the Trump administration couldn’t threaten to take away funding from cities that have policies favorable to illegal immigrants. If appealed, the case will go to the Ninth Circuit.
“First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!” Trump wrote in the first of a series of morning tweets. “Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the ‘ban’ case and now the ‘sanctuary’ case is brought in the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%).”
“They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.”
The Supreme Court reversed 79 percent of the 9th Circuit’s cases from 2010-2015, the third highest rate of any circuit court, according to Politifact.
The White House press office piled on, issuing a scathing indictment of the court, declaring “the rule of law suffered another blow” with the Tuesday ruling. The issuing of the statement, which originated from the Office of the Press Secretary, coincided with Trump’s tweets.
“They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.”
– President Trump
“Once again, a single district judge – this time in San Francisco – has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms,” the statement said, referring to the July 2015 death of Steinle which has been cited by Trump numerous times.
“San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands.”
Judge William Orrick’s ruling to halt Trump’s order on sanctuary cities instituted a nationwide injunction to stay in place while other pending lawsuits move forward.
In his decision, Orrick said the plaintiffs were likely to succeed and criticized the order as too broad, saying it potentially threatens to cut off a wide range of federal grants to targeted cities.
“And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments,” he said.
The judge further said that federal funding “bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement” and “cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the president disapproves.”
The judge clarified that the injunction “does not impact the Government’s ability to use lawful means to enforce existing conditions of federal grants … nor does it restrict the Secretary from developing regulations or preparing guidance on designating a jurisdiction as a ‘sanctuary jurisdiction.’”
Fox News’ Bill Mears contributed to this report.
Rush Limbaugh 04/26/2017 | Trump’s Tax Cuts Will Boost Revenue, Just Like Reagan’s >>>> Judge’s Sanctuary Order
The perception is that the judge prevented Trump from holding back federal funds from Sanctuary Cities …not true nothing has changed…start about the 28 minute mark