Politico
By Ted Hesson
June 27, 2018
A federal appeals court on Tuesday temporarily narrowed the scope of a nationwide injunction against the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold grants from so-called sanctuary cities.
The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted a request from Attorney General Jeff Sessions to stay the nationwide aspect of the injunction, so that it will apply only to the plaintiff, the city of Chicago, pending further consideration. The full bench of the appeals court will hear oral arguments over the scope of the injunction on Sept. 6.
A Justice Department spokesman criticized the use of broad injunctions against federal policies, saying “their increased use creates a dangerous precedent.”
The decision amounts to a victory for President Donald Trump in his quest to bring into line jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, which have been a frequent target of the president’s ire.
During a speech last week among “angel families” affected by violence at the hands of undocumented immigrants, Trump incorrectly railed against the Republican mayor of San Diego for tipping off residents to an upcoming immigration raid. The comment was likely intended for Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf, a Democrat, who in February warned of a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement raid in her area.
Despite Trump’s enthusiasm for the issue, his administration’s attempt to force jurisdictions into compliance has run into legal obstacles.
Federal judges in Philadelphia and Los Angeles have sided with those cities in legal battles over their sanctuary policies and Justice Department attempts to place conditions on federal grants.
A San Francisco-based federal judge in April 2017 blocked part of a Trump executive order that sought to restrict the flow of federal dollars to jurisdictions that limit information-sharing related to citizenship and immigration status.
And in the Chicago case, the 7th Circuit in April upheld a lower court’s block on an attempt to place immigration-related conditions on law enforcement grants through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program.
The Justice Department has also gone on the offensive. In March, it filed a lawsuit against California over laws the Trump administration argues obstruct federal immigration enforcement.
The Chicago case provided Sessions the opportunity to tackle another nettlesome issue: nationwide injunctions. Under the Obama administration and even more so under Trump, they’ve been applied to halt major immigration initiatives.
Sessions urged the 7th Circuit earlier this month to act swiftly to rein in the injunction against his administration’s anti-sanctuary city policy.
The appeals court responded that it would hold its ruling until after the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case over the latest version of Trump’s travel ban, presumably in the event the justices choose to tackle the issue.
The high court ruled on the ban Tuesday but did not broach the subject of sweeping court injunctions — which Sessions views as an abuse of power.
Justice Clarence Thomas addressed the court actions in a concurring opinion that questioned judges’ power to grant such extensive relief.
“These injunctions are beginning to take a toll on the federal court system,” Thomas wrote, “preventing legal questions from percolating through the federal courts, encouraging forum shopping, and making every case a national emergency for the courts and for the Executive Branch.”
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment