CA judge blocks Trump’s defunding of sanctuary cities

It’s judicial over-reach by activist judges all over again.

The AP reports that today (April 25, 2017), a federal judge, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, blocked any attempt by the Trump administration to withhold federal funding from “sanctuary cities” that refuse to cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities on deporting illegal “undocumented” aliens.

Note: William Horsley Orrick III, 63, was nominated by Obama to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California. On May 15, 2013, the U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of 56 to 41. According to Public Citizen, a non-profit, consumer rights advocacy group, Orrick, then employed by Coblentz, Patch, Duffy & Bass, raised at least $200,000 for Barack Obama and donated $30,800 to committees supporting Obama.

“Sanctuary cities” is a loosely defined term for jurisdictions — cities, counties, states — that don’t comply with immigration authorities.

Orrick issued the preliminary injunction in two lawsuits – one brought by the city of San Francisco, the other by Santa Clara County – against Trump’s executive order to defund sanctuary cities, counties, and states. The injunction will stay in place while the lawsuits work their way through court.

The Trump Administration maintains San Francisco’s and Santa Clara County’s lawsuits are premature because the federal government hasn’t cut off any money yet or declared any communities to be sanctuary cities. The administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe. San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes trust that is needed to get people to report crime.

Acting U.S. Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler had defended Trump’s executive order as an attempt to use his “bully pulpit’ to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law.” But Judge Orrick contends that President Trump has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending. And even if he could, the conditions would have to be clearly related to the funds at issue and not coercive because “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.”

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argue that Trump’s executive order threatens billions of dollars in federal funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan their budgets. But Readler said the threatened cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security grants and would affect less than $1 million for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco.

In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order “by its plain language, attempts to reach 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.”

Trump’s executive order has also led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and the city of Richmond in the San Francisco Bay Area. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County lawsuits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.

Meanwhile, mayors from several U.S. cities threatened with the loss of federal grants emerged from a meeting today with Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying they remain confused about how to prove their police are in compliance with immigration policies – a necessary step for them to receive grant money.

The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a directive calling for a wall on the Mexican border.

A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.


23 responses to “CA judge blocks Trump’s defunding of sanctuary cities

  1. People are complaining their tax dollars are being wasted and they have a right to complain. Streets, infrastructure, etc are being horribly neglected for the sake of entertainment babies. Eventually the money will run out, then what?

    Liked by 2 people

  2. The removal of corrupt judges should be a priority of this administration. For far to long we have been held hostage by activists disguised as jurists. These people have ruled with impunity and it needs to stop. Maybe dragging one of them out of the courthouse in handcuffs would send the message that WE have had enough.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. .I wonder if he would feel the same way if he were Kate Steinle’s dad?

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Pingback: KOMMONSENTSJANE – CA judge blocks Trump’s defunding of sanctuary cities — Fellowship of the Minds | kommonsentsjane

  5. Pingback: California Judge Blocks Trump’s Defunding of Sanctuary Cities | The Olive Branch Report

  6. I’ve had enough, time for multiple impeachments. Obama created complete havoc, at home and overseas. Time for more focus on attacking the enemies within.

    Liked by 2 people

  7. Nothing like buying your seat on the bench. BO spent eight years placing judges around the country that will do his bidding for years to come. Their take down of the country was well planned and implemented. We will see the damage done for years.
    On the other hand I would just love to go and bitch slap them all. My patience is running thin with these ignorant aholes.
    They wanted to damage this county and that, they did. I hope they are proud of themselves.
    Anyone who thinks Jarrett wasn’t the mastermind behind all this damage, should do a rethink. She should be brought up on charges with the rest.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Glenn47 . . . I for one would like to be a member of the “bitch slapping” committee. This business that we have all these rampant judges giving edicts as though this country were their fiefdoms needs to stop. They need to be removed from office.

      Liked by 1 person

    • “On the other hand I would just love to go and bitch slap them all.”

      Me too !!!! I’m so angry I could spit !!! To me it looks like they are winning. Evil doesn’t care about the law or any rules, and with that they mow over everything and everyone. I am not counting on Trump anymore though either. What does that leave us with?

      Liked by 1 person

  8. If I’m Trump, I’m going for a mass ICE raid in San Francisco ASAP.

    This “judge” has no authority to do this, and should be ignored.

    Liked by 3 people

  9. “Judge Orrick also, in 2015, blocked the release of the notorious underground recordings of Planned Parenthood, in which the sale of harvested organs from aborted fetuses was discussed.”

    Source –

    Breaking: Obama Judge blocks fed action against sanctuary cities; he raised money for Obama

    Related link –

    Judge Blocking Planned Parenthood Videos An Obama Bundler and Donor

    Additional link that might be of interest…

    Wife of Judge Who Blocked Pro-Life Videos Exposing Planned Parenthood is a Pro-Abortion Activist

    Liked by 2 people

  10. OK Judge Chad Readler you just told America, that is the portion of the land on the east side of the country of fornication where you so proudly preside that lawbreakers will never be prosecuted in your hell hole! And you think you still have the right to get money from us and the US you sir are as dumb as the devil you serve, and as ignorant as Balaam, (Number 22:28) his ass was smarter than he was!

    Liked by 1 person

  11. When I saw this, I was furious. Stopped once again by a leftist judge. Not a surprise, I guess, but angry nonetheless. I hope that the president has a plan to get around this kind of nonsense. And just like president Andrew Johnson, I think it was, said, “You made your law, now go ahead and try to enforce it.” This judge his ruling, now try and make it stick. The president has many other tools at his discretion. The power of the purse rests with the House,not with the president. The president can steer the ship away from California though. And if I recall, California has one of the largest economies in the world. So simply by NOT pushing policies that favor their state, the president could cost their state untold millions.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Pingback: OK! We can’t withhold funds … but – On the Patio

  13. He was appointed by Obama, the sanctuary cities are Obama’s baby and he gave Obama hundreds of thousands of dollars. He should have recused himself.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Kevin J Lankford

    Once again, for some inexplainable reason, Trump allows insignificant, judges, having absolutely no say or authority over his legal Constitutional actions, to impose rulings without force of law.

    Leaves one truly concerned for trump’s principles and motives.

    Liked by 2 people

  15. There has been one “immovable” obstacle after another attacking Donald Trump since the day he began to seek the presidency. He has managed to get past all of them. So based on his track record, I am predicting Trump’s victory over these petty judges.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I know I will catch hell but the judge is right in this situation. The rules for money distribution can be changed in October when the Trump administration establishes the rules for financial distribution.

    You can not go back and change the rules mid stream.


  17. Every so-called “left-over” Obama-appointed judge needs to be replaced by Trump ASAP. Every president does exactly the same thing to empower his policy and that of his administration and the governing majority party.
    Such court rulings as this are directly confrontational to the president specifically because the judge objects on a subjective basis to what the president, Republicans, the right, and conservatives (and Christians) believe in and care for, not because it’s in line with the law or The Constitution. If funds can’t be withheld from all sources for all purposes, then just remove the ones that aren’t involved and let the rest be withheld. That is basic legal contract language.
    Local cops aren’t being asked to perform ICE duties, just to hold prisoners 48 hours until ICE etc. can pick them up for proper processing. The ONLY reason such sanctuary cities & states don’t want to help is that for some reason, they would rather aid non-citizens break the law than aid federal law enforcement to protect legal citizens from such illegal aliens. It’s that simple. For what reason, I can’t conceive, unless the libs want to protect those who are bringing their drugs into the country, or performing some other illegal service, or providing some other contraband substance. Or votes? It’s as crazy as figuring why the left supports ISIS/PLO/etc. over Israel, or Muslims over Christianity. I think they just like flouting the law and authority… “You’re not the boss of me!” Meh.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s