President Trump threatened to “withhold funds” from “sanctuary cities” when he signed an executive order on Jan. 25, 2017. Now, 19 months later, a federal appeals court has deemed the move unconstitutional, upholding a previous district court ruling.
The 2-1 decision Wednesday by the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the federal government cannot withhold federal funding from cities and counties in retaliation for policies that support immigrant and refugee communities.
The ruling was initiated in a lawsuit from the California counties of San Francisco and Santa Clara.
“If they wanted to go after Chicago, if they wanted to go after Denver or Philadelphia, they would not be bound by an injunction,” said David Levine, an expert on federal court procedure at the University of California, Hastings, College of Law. “Those places would have to bring their own lawsuits and whatever happens, happens in those cases.”
Judge Sidney R. Thomas wrote in his decision that only Congress has the power to grant or deny funding.
“Here, the Administration has not even attempted to show that Congress authorized it to withdraw federal grant moneys from jurisdictions that do not agree with the current Administration’s immigration strategies,” Thomas wrote. “Nor could it. In fact, Congress has frequently considered and thus far rejected legislation accomplishing the goals of the Executive Order.”
“Put simply, the president cannot use the threat of defunding as a weapon to force local governments to abandon politics that make their communities safer,” said Santa Clara County, Calif., Counsel James R. Williams.
“We have the law – and justice – on our side,” said Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan. “This ruling is a victory for welcoming cities everywhere and confirms that the administration’s actions violate our Constitution.”
Durkan added, “As we mark this victory for our City, we have no illusions: the administration’s threats to welcoming cities like ours will continue, and these threats will do nothing to make our communities safer. We will not allow our City and our state to be bullied by the President and Attorney General Sessions, who continue to threaten our shared values of inclusion, opportunity, and diversity.”
“I’m pleased that the 9th Circuit recognized that the Trump Administration can’t bully jurisdictions into selling out their immigrant communities,” said Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes. “Seattle is proud to be a Welcoming City, and we won’t be threatened into abandoning our principles. We are closely evaluating this ruling and considering its implications for our own lawsuit, City of Seattle v. Donald J. Trump.”
An updated list of sanctuary cities is available.
Kent Scheidegger, legal director of the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, sided with Trump on the case. Scheidegger said, “This case is headed for rehearing by a larger 11-judge panel, at least, and probably to the Supreme Court.”
San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera praised the ruling.
“San Francisco’s sanctuary policies make our city safer by encouraging anyone who has been a victim or witness to a crime to tell police,” Herrera said. “We are a safer community when people aren’t afraid to call the Fire Department in an emergency.”
Herrera added, “When a president overreaches and tries to assert authority he doesn’t have under the Constitution, there needs to be a check on that power grab. The courts did that today, which is exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.”