“If federal funding to sanctuary cities is cut off, as Trump’s administration has threatened, New York City could lose about nine percent of the city’s annual budget, or about $7 billion. In December, comptroller Scott Stringer released a report detailing exactly what would be at stake: That $7 billion goes toward, among other things, the NYPD’s Intelligence and Counterterrorism budget; Section 8 Housing Choice vouchers, which would affect 39,000 households; half of the budget for the city’s already-strapped Child Protective Services agency; and almost the entire budget of the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene’s HIV/AIDS Prevention and Treatment program.”
So -
Does the executive branch have the power to cut off those funds or will it have to go to Congress?
If it has to go through Congress, can they do it in one bill or does this have to be done piecemeal - one bill for NYPD funds, one for Section 8, etc etc.?
AFAIK, cities have to balance books in their budgets. 9% is a huge chunk of the budget. If the money is actually taken away, can NYC hold out?
Obviously the first thing New York City would do (after contacting Senate and House members) would be to file lawsuits. I don’t see how Trump’s actions could be upheld unless Congress passed specific legislation.
For those wondering, in the US a sanctuary city is one which doesn’t use their own funds to enforce immigration laws. They may or may not ban their employees from asking about somebody’s immigration status.
Remember when Republicans thought that broad-sweeping executive orders were “autocratic” abuses of power by “an Imperial president” flagrantly defying the Constitution?
As I understand it, “sanctuary city” is not a definition of municipal status. It is a convenience term, coined for the purpose of labeling cities that have taken a certain ad-hoc posture on issues that they are fully entitled to administrate. There is no “list” of sanctuary cities, but only a media labeling of cities who have directed their law enforcement agencies to do what the have always done – to make judgment calls about which laws they will give enforcement priority to.
All a city would really need to do is to pass a resolution affirming that it is “not a sanctuary city”, but then keep right on using its own discretion concerning the selective enforcement of federal laws according to its own set of priorities.
Well I do, and I’ll be watching closely to make sure Trump stays within the limits of executive power, unlike the past two Presidents.
As for this particular order, it actually isn’t specific enough to really mean much of anything. So far, that’s been how Trump has done his executive orders. They are basically just memos to Cabinet officials telling him what he wants the priorities to be. For example, the health care EO was basically just telling Tom Price to go as easy on enforcement of the regulations and the individual mandate as allowed by law. The sanctuary cities EO simply tells Homeland Security to strip whatever funds from sanctuary cities that are legally allowed. Courts have already ruled that the only funding that can be stripped from sanctuary cities is immigration-related funding. Which probably should have been stripped anyway since they aren’t helping us out. Likewise, I bet states where pot is legal are still getting money to enforce pot laws which they aren’t using to enforce pot laws. I could be offbase there(perhaps all federal drug enforcement money goes under the general heading “drugs”?), but there is SOME federal funding that can be stripped right away, although it’s probably not much and mostly symbolic.
EVen Congress can’t strip ALL funding from sanctuary cities. That’s fallout from the ACA decision, actually. The federal government cannot use federal money in general as a gun to the head of states and cities to carry out federal policies. Cities and states also have no obligation to enforce federal law.
However, those states that would like to help enforce federal law, and those cities, should receive all possible aid and encouragement. And there is a potential “gun to the head” that can be used against sanctuary cities: the federal government will pay all crime victims of illegal immigrants compensation for their losses, with the money coming out of state and city funding.
I do not know but seems to me it doesn’t matter. Money is fungible. Consider the NYC budget as one big pot. The fed can say they are taking from Section 8 but the NY city government can move what money is in the pot around to cover the short fall or not as they like.
If it has to go through Congress, can they do it in one bill or does this have to be done piecemeal - one bill for NYPD funds, one for Section 8, etc etc.?
A bill going through congress does not have to be a single item bill. Think about how many bills pass congress with riders on them having nothing to do with the law being passed. That is how much of the pork gets through congress.
I’m not an expert on these programs, but as a general rule, the Supreme Court has set limits on the ability of the Federal government (not the President specifically, but the government as an entity) on what strings may be attached to Federal funding.
The case came about because of laws that linked cuts to highway funding for states that did not enact certain drunk driving laws. The broad outline of the Court’s decision includes a provision that the funding cuts cannot be coercive, and that the conditions must be constitutional.
I think it is debatable whether the Federal government can compel local law enforcement to take on Federal law enforcement responsibilities. But I think it’s quite clear that Trump’s whole intent is to coerce cities to take certain actions. On the face of it, I have a hard time seeing how a move to restrict substantial sums of funding that goes to cities would pass the court’s test.
It could go as one bill, but again, I think there’s good reason to question whether such a law would be constitutional, for the same reasons mentioned in #1.
It probably depends on what specific funding is at stake. Some law enforcement grants are for new equipment, like maybe radios or special tools. I suppose the NYPD could make do with existing equipment. Other funding for, say, ongoing public health programs might have an immediate impact in stopping sick people from seeing doctors. It’s hard to mitigate such a loss in funding unless revenue can be found from elsewhere.
Both, basically. Congress allocates funds, and the Executive Branch has to spend them in the manner Congress directs. Impoundment - the POTUS refusing to spend appropriated funds specifically earmarked by Congress - is unconstitutional.
However, Congress appropriates funds based largely on the Executive’s funding requests. So while Trump has to fund sanctuary cities for now, he can just not ask for federal funds for New York next year. Congress can override him, of course.
In many cases, Congress will not have specified where the funds are to be spent, in which case Trump can just spend them on places other than New York, and not need Congress at all.
As a practical matter, Congress does not appropriate funds on a geographic basis, but on a program basis. So while there might be specific appropriations for some of New York’s federal largesse, most of it is probably earmarked on a discretionary basis in geographic terms. So long as it’s spent on Homeland Security (or whatever) generally, Trump is in the clear.
