Patterico's Pontifications

7/12/2019

9th Circuit: Trump DOJ can withhold grants to Sanctuary Cities

Filed under: Immigration,Law — DRJ @ 4:00 pm



[Headline from DRJ]

Courthouse News:

Justice Department Cleared to Tie Police Grants to ICE Cooperation

Reversing, a divided Ninth Circuit panel ruled Friday the Justice Department acted lawfully when it withheld federal grants from Los Angeles for refusing to comply with the Trump administration’s immigration policies.

And from The Hill:

The ruling, a split 2-1 decision, said the Department of Justice (DOJ) was within its rights to withhold Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants from sanctuary cities and states over their refusal to work with federal immigration enforcement authorities and instead prioritize agencies that focused on unauthorized immigration and agreed to give Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) access to jail records and immigrants in custody.

The city of Los Angeles first sued the administration after it was denied a $3 million grant on the grounds that it did not receive the money because it did not focus on immigration for its community policing grant application. The decision reversed a district court’s ruling.

— DRJ

36 Responses to “9th Circuit: Trump DOJ can withhold grants to Sanctuary Cities”

  1. Huh…

    Don’t follow federal laws… don’t get to feast on government teats.

    whembly (4605df)

  2. Yes. Plus a win.

    DRJ (15874d)

  3. Tuck Frump but give us the money.

    Bob Smith (5a4596)

  4. Yes. Plus a win

    So you agree with the proposition that the Federal government has the right to tell city police forces what they need to focus on, whatever the locals think?

    [That’s a bit hyperbolic and rhetorical, of course..but my real point is: why should the Federal government be in the business of funding state and local LEOs, and telling them how to do their job?]

    Kishnevi (8f6228)

  5. The federal government has been carrying a lot of the load for local law enforcement since the Founding. From U.S. Marshals, to the FBI and its fingerprint, mug shot and rap sheet data base, to the LEAA. A lot of times the locals don’t welcome that assistance. For example Al Capone’s Chicago PD and Owney Madden’s NYPD. Now instead of liquor and gambling, it’s illegals.

    Yesterday, Dana linked that the Chicago PD is not going to allow ICE access to its criminal databases. Well, if the FBI retaliated by not allowing the Chicago PD access to its fingerprint, mug shot and rap sheet database, the Chicago PD would be up the creek without a paddle. This withholding a little cash is small potatoes.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. So providing backup services gives the Feds the right to boss the states around?

    Kishnevi (8f6228)

  7. If you take the danegeld, you are obliged to follow his orders

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  8. Even without providing backup services, the Feds have the right to boss the states around when there is federal jurisdiction or concurrent federal and state jurisdiction. The Supremacy Clause.

    But the present case is one of tit for tat. No tat, no federal tit.

    nk (dbc370)

  9. Bad parallel. In general, the Danes gave the orders and the Saxons complied.

    Kishnevi (8f6228)

  10. Yes, Danegold was tribute or, if you prefer, “reparations”.

    nk (dbc370)

  11. Now if they can do without the funds they can do what they want. They’re only asking to enforce existing federal law.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  12. *Danegeld* “Geld”. Snorfle! Appropriate. Yes, I know it means money too.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. why should the Federal government be in the business of funding state and local LEOs, and telling them how to do their job?

    Can’t say, but they do, and when you take the king’s money then piss on the king’s men, something’s gonna give.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  14. They’re only asking to enforce existing federal law.

    Actually, they are only asking them not to actively assist in breaking federal law.

    Kevin M (21ca15)

  15. kishnevi,

    I don’t like giving the federal government control over any local law enforcement funding but we’ve done that since the War on Drugs and 9/11. Maybe we had to, maybe we didn’t, but it is done. Therefore, I want a connection between the funding and the results. The DOJ has authority to make three kinds of grants and I think it is reasonable to expect the recipients to comply with federal law.

    Obviously how different Presidents construe and follow federal law will vary. I probably won’t like some interpretations. But at least there will be a principle that law matters, even if it is federal law.

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. Gosh, I hope the Dog Trainer editorial board has preemptively written an outraged editorial in case this had come to pass. I hate to think that their board will be staying late tonight or having to come into the office tomorrow in order to compose it in time for the Sunday Opinion page.

    Oh, who am I kidding? They have an editorial about some other topic already slated to run in Sunday’s paper and they’ll get around to inveighing against this decision in Tuesday’s or Wednesday’s pages.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  17. So providing backup services gives the Feds the right to boss the states around?

    Federal grant. If you take the money you have to play by their rules. If you don’t, they don’t have to give you any more taxpayer money

    The other part of the equation is Federal Law overrides State Law with regards to immigration. (See: Arizona SB 1070)

    Charles Anderson (90d4f4)

  18. Don’t follow federal laws… don’t get to feast on government teats.

    The decision (by two Dubya appointees…) doesn’t bother me at all, but the above is not an accurate characterization of the situation.

    Local police departments do not violate any law by refusing to comply with immigration administrative requests. I think *that* (the fact that compliance with these detainers is voluntary) is the real problem, and should be addressed by legislation.

    If you expect people to treat something with the force of law, then give it the force of law.

    Dave (1bb933)

  19. The other part of the equation is Federal Law overrides State Law with regards to immigration.

    Again, this has nothing to do with violating or overriding any law. I wish people would understand what they’re talking about…

    Dave (1bb933)

  20. Gosh, I hope the Dog Trainer editorial board has preemptively written an outraged editorial in case this had come to pass.

    I suspect the 9th Circuit handing Trump a win might catch them by surprise…

    Dave (1bb933)

  21. 9th Circuit Court. Isn’t that the radical leftist socialist activist 9th Circuit?
    Funny how the decision you like makes the venue ok.
    I’m sure it’s a clock stopped kind of thing, right?

    Tom M (347d19)

  22. 9th Circuit Court. Isn’t that the radical leftist socialist activist 9th Circuit?
    Funny how the decision you like makes the venue ok.

    Or, you know, maybe it’s because thanks to Cocaine Mitch and Senator Chuck Grassley, President Trump has managed to get seven new judges confirmed to that court. That has significantly helped tame the court’s rancid liberalism. But it sounds like you aren’t up to speed on all that, so you’re just asking us why our 2005 arguments aren’t still valid.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  23. According to Wikipedia, which is usually ok for facts but not necessarily analysis, here is the break-down of the current 9th Circuit judges by Presidential appointment:

    Nixon – 2 (both senior status)
    Ford – 0
    Carter – 4 (all senior status)
    Reagan -3 (all senior status)
    GHW Bush – 2 (both senior status)
    Clinton – 14 (5 senior status)
    GW Bush – 7 (2 senior status)
    Obama – 7
    Trump – 7

    So that makes 21 appointees by Republican Presidents (9 senior status) and 25 appointed by Democrat Presidents (9 senior status). Not that this exactly fixes each one’s ideology, but it’s at least a starting point.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  24. JVW (54fd0b) — 7/12/2019 @ 10:39 pm

    That smack-down was a thing of beauty, JVW.

    felipe (023cc9)

  25. Amidst all this whine and outcry with hyped media coverage over kiddies at the borders, illegals in need of basics like toothpaste, soap and something more than a mylar emergency blanket to sleep under out of the elements, can’t help but thinking about the plight of America’s own citizens– the homeless, the impoverished and the elderly; the retirees on fixed incomes, stealing across the border for affordable meds, overpriced in the states and so forth, stretching a buck; trying to avoid cat food at the end of a long month and so on. The Americans who really did help to make America great at some point in their lives.

    They should come first. Illegals, not so much.

    “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” – Rhett Butler [Clark Gable] ‘GWTW’ 1939

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. “Frankly my dear, I don’t give a damn.” – Rhett Butler [Clark Gable] ‘GWTW’ 1939

    Somebody is watching Turner Movie Classics tonight. I was flipping the dial and noticed it was playing.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  27. @27. Meh. Bingo. Still a colorful flick; holds up wel.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. Again, this has nothing to do with violating or overriding any law. I wish people would understand what they’re talking about…

    Dave (1bb933) — 7/12/2019 @ 10:26 pm

    I think state and local sanctuary laws — such as laws that bar local law enforcement officers from detaining individuals who violate federal immigration law or cooperating with ICE — are in conflict with and attempts to override federal immigration laws.

    DRJ (15874d)

  29. Since every major action by the President gets ruled on by the Federal courts, why don’t we just cut out the middle man, and let the Federal Appeals judges run the country?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  30. They do. The Executive Branch is their factotum. I suppose we could simplify the hiring procedure.

    nk (dbc370)

  31. This seems to be a win, but time will tell.

    A modest proposal: allow colleges to declare themselves “sanctuary campus” and then begin housing illegal aliens on each campus to make use of all vacant/unused facilities.

    Colonel Haiku (2601c0)

  32. $3M?

    Garcetti can squander that within the hour.
    Just look at the money he spends on 30,000 “homeless” (Homeless includes the drug addled, drug addicted, alcoholic, violent mentally ill, early release felons and maybe a handful of ordinary law abiding citizens who have fallen on hard times)
    He wants $1.2 Billion or $40,000 per “homeless” because the $100 Million he started with has gone primarily to “raised awareness” and “non-profits” but little finds its way down to the streets.

    Austin, TX is the next LA or Seattle (Free-attle as it is known)

    steveg (354706)

  33. My preference would be for honesty and accountability.

    I’d eliminate most federal assistance to state and local governments, period. That would solve the quid pro quo problem, and it would enhance state and local government accountability: If your city council in Berkeley can’t afford to equip its police or fix its potholes, put the blame unequivocally on them for the resulting consequences, and the responsibility for fixing them. If those council members won’t respond, the voters should throw them out. If the voters won’t throw them out, they deserve what they get.

    And on matters like cooperation with federal law enforcement and immigration, Congress can, and should, pass forthright legislation preempting — nullifying, invalidating, and even criminalizing — interference by state and local governments. If that means Gov. Gavin Newsome or San Francisco mayor London Breed go to a federal pokey, then fine: So should anyone who directly and deliberately obstructs legal federal law enforcement efforts.

    This carrot and stick nonsense is toxic to the body politic. Both political parties are guilty of it.

    Beldar (a5097b)

  34. Try to find a prosecutor anywhere on the west coast, who would indict said officials, or a jury that would convict.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)

  35. #34
    Agreed

    And even though I am very much affected, don’t let people in CA and NY write off state taxes.
    We have to feel the consequences of our (collective) voting choices

    steveg (354706)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6633 secs.