Do you mind saying what you base that on?
I think they may be able to do that, but it would require new legislation since the existing legislation doesn’t have the contingency conditions that the Administration wants. The Chicago matter is regarding a certain specific grant, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program and those rules are already set. My understanding is that these are multi year grants with optional single year extensions. The next period due for re-application is coming toward the end of this month so that may be why it’s in the news. This is the actual legislation authorizing the grants.
But the fundamental question remains: to the extent that Congress has dictated how Byrne Grants are to be awarded, the Executive Branch is already on thin ice in coming up with new procedures that don’t comply with the law. Plus, it isn’t exactly clear to me what the Administration means by sanctuary cities, but it seems to involve obligating states to take some more active role in enforcement of immigration laws.
There is an ample body of precident that the Feds can’t direct local police to enforce Federal policies, so depending on what the White House is seeking, so there may simply be a problem on the fundamental policy.
Mainly his opinions he has written so far, and in particular their tone, reasoning, and lack of humility. But also his having less legal ideology than Scalia or Thomas; his having survived an interview with Trump; his selection on the Federalist Society shortlist; and his performance at his hearings.
Maybe I will be pleasantly surprised. I doubt it.
I tend to agree. According to Bone’s cite above, the Attorney General “may” issue the grants, but if he does so it is in accordance with the ratio prescribed by law in which higher population and higher crime rate areas get a larger portion of the grant money.
I see nothing in the law which gives the AG discretion to withhold funds for ANY reason. So, IMHO, we don’t even reach the SD v. Dole argument, because the law requires that if the AG issues the grants at all, he issues them according to the formula.
I really wonder what the dealio is there. It’s a piddling amount of money so my instinct is that this capitulation is at least as much of a statement as the as the Chicago lawsuit against. More so, in fact, because a neutral prudent decision would be to hold tight until you saw how the wind was blowing on that lawsuit.
Oh, now that I read it properly rather than just scan, I see this isn’t new news since Miami-Dade county made this policy change in February.
Well shiver-me-deez-nuts but some assholes down in Texas (well technically a three-panel judge in New Orleans) decided that local authorities better co-operate with ICE in Texas sanctuary cities. Fortunately this is only a temporary ruling until appeals court in November.
Since we are picking up this debate again, Chicago has prevailed in its first (but not conclusive) test of the Trump Administration’s new policy.
I’m not surprised at all. But I’m not clear when the lawsuit will reach a judgment on its merits, as opposed to an injunction.
Weaselly McWeaselface Sessions is roundin’ em up in his latest bid yet to be the pettiest scumbaggian festering puddle of light-greenish calf’s diarrhea since, well, nothing that had existed before, with his frontier Justice Dept. singling out NY, Philly, N.O., and Chicago for allegedly giving sanctuary to undocumented immigrants, and face an Oct. 27 deadline to somehow show that they’re cooperating with federal officials, or they’ll risk losing federal grants. I say “somehow” because it was not elaborated on. What - curtsey in front of all storming ICE monkeys?*
This is what I heard from Judy Woodruff a while ago - it was just a 30-second piece that I hoped was a teaser for something longer later on, but that’s all there was - so I’m hoping they’ll have more on that tomorrow.
In the meantime, my intrawebz skills are not helping me find a cite at the moment. Heh, is Judy quicker than the web?
*GREAT new twist on the old Ice Capades deal!
Done before?
Lancelot Link?
Missed edit window:
maybe should have changed:
“…sanctuary to undocumented immigrants, and face an Oct. 27 deadline…”
to:
“…sanctuary to undocumented immigrants. These cities face an Oct. 27 deadline…”
Yes, they did. It turned out to be the wrong decision though yeah? Being a dick normally does
Jeepers! I love this ruling, but where does the 10th Amendment say any of the things in the quote box?
Maybe the Constitution should say those things, but the 10th doesn’t actually specify anything at all!
How about a sanctuary state?
States’ rights. It isn’t just for slavin’ anymore.
The CA law does more than restrict the actions of state and local government employers. It prohibits cooperation of private employers too. For example, if you are an owner of a local building supply depot, and federal immigration enforcement officers asked if you would consent to allowing them to enter non-public areas to review employee records, that would be a civil violation. Here is the text of AB 450:
I’m guessing this new law will be challenged and found at least partially unconstitutional to the extent it prohibits voluntary actions of private employers.
Did you all see the new story out about how people have been posting on “Welcome to California” signs?
“Felons, Illegals, and MS13 members welcome”:
You have to admit that it IS the truth.
Bolding mine.
…even if the employer has a perfectly valid reason to challenge what may turn out to be a completely misguided, invalid subpoena or warrant?
And I’ll betcha any challenges will just get thrown out.
uuuuhhhh you have to admit that your source IS invalid, correct?