Washington – President Donald Trump on Wednesday attacked a federal judge’s ruling that blocked his executive order seeking to withhold funds from “sanctuary cities” for illegal immigrants, vowing to appeal it to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Subscribe to our Daily Roundup Email
Tuesday’s ruling by U.S. District Judge William Orrick in San Francisco was the latest blow to Trump’s efforts to toughen immigration enforcement. Federal courts have also blocked his two travel bans on citizens of mostly Muslim nations.
“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 said in a tweet, referring to the San Francisco-based federal appeals court and its judicial district.
The Trump administration has targeted sanctuary cities, which generally offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Critics say authorities endanger public safety when they decline to hand over for deportation illegal immigrants arrested for crimes, while supporters argue that enlisting police cooperation to round up immigrants for removal undermines trust in local police, particularly among Latinos.
Dozens of local governments and cities, including New York, Los Angeles and Chicago, have joined the “sanctuary” movement.
In his ruling, Orrick said Trump’s Jan. 25 order targeted broad categories of federal funding for the sanctuary cities and that plaintiffs challenging it were likely to succeed in proving it unconstitutional.
An appeal is likely to be heard by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals before it goes to the Supreme Court. Republicans view the appeals court as biased toward liberals, and Trump was quick to attack its reputation in his tweets.
It “has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this “judge shopping!” Messy system,” he wrote.
The appeals court raised Trump’s ire earlier this year when it upheld a Seattle judge’s decision to block the Republican president’s first travel ban on citizens of seven predominantly Muslim nations.
In May, the court will hear an appeal of a Hawaii judge’s order blocking Trump’s revised travel ban, which placed restrictions on citizens from six mostly Muslim countries. A Maryland judge also blocked portions of the second ban.
Trump has issued sweeping condemnations of courts and judges when they have ruled against him or his administration.
In February, he called the federal judge in Seattle who ruled against his first travel ban a “so-called judge.” During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump accused an Indiana-born judge overseeing lawsuits against the defunct Trump University of bias based on his Mexican ancestry.
(Reporting by Doina Chiacu; Editing by Paul Simao)
Open in New Window
Download Story
Create New Collection
Share via Email
Print
Date26/04/2017 08:15 AM
Word Count430
Copyright(c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2017. Click For Restrictions – http://about.reuters.com/fulllegal.asp
Source News FeedsUS Domestic,US Politics,US Top
IDtag:reuters.com,2017:newsml_KBN17S1KI:1
Another defeat for the Orange Yutz who said we’d be so sick of how much he’d win. First 100 Days and Day One race to the Trumpoid bottom. And now he gets NO WALL!
> supporters argue that enlisting police cooperation to round up immigrants for removal undermines trust in local police
False narrative. This is nothing about “rounding up” immigrants. It is about those named persons who have a Federal order against them and who are in police custody (for whatever other reason) whom the city deliberately releases. Take as example the following under the Obama administration. In 2013 Juan Francisco Lopez Sanchez was caught while illegally entering the U.S. He had already been previously arrested and convicted and served time and deported for crimes, including cocaine. San Francisco asked the Feds to hand over Lopez to face some local marijuana charge. The Feds agreed but filled out the proper paperwork to require San Francisco to return Lopez after they finish. But when the city finished, they deliberately released Lopez as a matter of policy (by their own admission this was not a bureaucratic oversight, it was deliberate policy). So Lopez, free and unaccounted for, gets hold of a rifle and shoots DEAD a 20-something girl in the back (in his version of events he did not know she there, he was just shooting randomly, supposedly into the air).
Trump really needs to reassess how he selects his advisors, as many of them seem to have inadequate expertise in critical areas. I think any experienced constitutional/administrative attorney could have predicted the possibility of the court decision, and would have crafted around such a result.
Jared Kushner is perhaps the best example of the issue.
Imagine for a minute any other President selecting the 34 year old son of a real estate magnate, a man with no substantive work experience other than working in his father’s business, a guy who was a “legacy” admission to Harvard (two months after his father donated $93 million to the school) with only mediocre high school grades and SAT scores…and assign him to negotiate Middle East peace, lead a “total” reorganization of the Federal government, and a host of other senior policy roles.
Laughable, if it were not so serious.
Another liberal judge, nothing more to see.
Good job by the demorats giving more money to the illegals.