Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

EvilEyeFleegle

Dogpatch USA
Gold Supporting Member
Nov 2, 2017
15,480
8,608
1,280
Twin Falls Idaho
Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

Once again..the Federal Govt. cannot compel local authorities to enforce Federal Statute...How many times must they lose in court until they get it--local police are not required to enforce federal law...we have federal agencies for that.

"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.

Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.

"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests wit
h
Congress""
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: del
Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

Once again..the Federal Govt. cannot compel local authorities to enforce Federal Statute...How many times must they lose in court until they get it--local police are not required to enforce federal law...we have federal agencies for that.

"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.

Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.

"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests wit
h
Congress""


Yes....left wing nuts, pretending to be judges are saying these cities can break the law....this is why we need Trump to appoint actual judges to the bench...
 
Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

Once again..the Federal Govt. cannot compel local authorities to enforce Federal Statute...How many times must they lose in court until they get it--local police are not required to enforce federal law...we have federal agencies for that.

"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.

Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.

"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests wit
h
Congress""


Yes....left wing nuts, pretending to be judges are saying these cities can break the law....this is why we need Trump to appoint actual judges to the bench...

yes, another reagan appointee left wing nut disagreed with the cheeto.

you people are pathetic, truly

Appellate Judge Ilana Rovner made clear in the opinion the court’s role was “not to assess the optimal immigration policies for our country.” However, she wrote that “the issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation” — the separation of powers.

“The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement,” Rovner wrote. “But the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement condition on the receipt of such funds.”


Court upholds ruling, blocks Trump administration in sanctuary cities case

Rovner was nominated by President Ronald Reagan on June 19, 1984, to a seat on the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois vacated by Judge Joel Flaum. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on September 12, 1984, and received commission the same day. Her service was terminated on August 17, 1992, due to elevation to the Seventh Circuit.[4]

Rovner was nominated by President George H. W. Bush on July 2, 1992, to a seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated by Judge Harlington Wood Jr. She was confirmed by the United States Senate on August 12, 1992, and received commission on August 17, 1992.[4]



Ilana Rovner - Wikipedia
 
Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

Once again..the Federal Govt. cannot compel local authorities to enforce Federal Statute...How many times must they lose in court until they get it--local police are not required to enforce federal law...we have federal agencies for that.

"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.

Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.

"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests wit
h
Congress""


Yes....left wing nuts, pretending to be judges are saying these cities can break the law....this is why we need Trump to appoint actual judges to the bench...
Because the court does not rule your way..does not mean they are not "real' judges. If you had a brain in your head, you'd know that this is about State and local rights...and the protection of same. Trump could deport most illegals right now..using existing law..but he doesn't have the will...so perhaps your beef is with him? After all..the Executive Branch is the one tasked with law enforcement, right?

BTW..I despise Sanctuary cities...and would deport every illegal in the country, if i could. Trump could..but he's too afraid of the 'optics'--and the Republicans are afraid that they'd lose power...so Trump moans about a wall..and Sanctuary cities..instead of exercising his authority in a lawful manner.
 
Trump could deport most illegals right now..using existing law..but he doesn't have the will...so perhaps your beef is with him?

No, not really. To deport somebody, they need to have a trial, and trials are backed up a year or so. Trump did however hire more judges to speed up the process, but that's much different than just deporting people who never had their case heard in court.
 
Appeals court rules against U.S. on funds for sanctuary cities

Once again..the Federal Govt. cannot compel local authorities to enforce Federal Statute...How many times must they lose in court until they get it--local police are not required to enforce federal law...we have federal agencies for that.

"A federal appeals court on Thursday said the U.S. Justice Department cannot deny public safety grants to so-called sanctuary cities that limit cooperation with the Trump administration's crackdown on illegal immigration.

The Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a lower court injunction in a case brought by the city of Chicago. The appeals court agreed the injunction should apply nationally while the lawsuit proceeds in federal court.

The case is one of a number of battles between the administration of Republican President Donald Trump and Democratic state and local leaders over immigration, healthcare, the environment and other issues.

Chicago sued last year after U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced he would cut off cities from certain Justice Department grants unless they allowed federal immigration authorities unlimited access to local jails and provided 48 hours' notice before releasing anyone wanted for immigration violations.

The lawsuit contended that Sessions exceeded his authority by imposing new conditions beyond those Congress prescribed when it established the grant program. In its ruling on Thursday, a three-judge Seventh Circuit panel said its role was not to decide national immigration policy, but rather to protect the separation of powers between the branches of the federal government.

"The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement," the court wrote. "But the power of the purse rests wit
h
Congress""


Yes....left wing nuts, pretending to be judges are saying these cities can break the law....this is why we need Trump to appoint actual judges to the bench...

They are not breaking the law . Immigration is for INS . Not local PD.

Should INS agents be allowed to write speeding tickets ?
 
It's nice to see how the left supports breaking Federal laws.

That means if any ban on any arms is a Federal law, local law enforcement can tell you asshats to fuck off.


well, it will be different then, I'm sure.
 
It's nice to see how the left supports breaking Federal laws.

That means if any ban on any arms is a Federal law, local law enforcement can tell you asshats to fuck off.


well, it will be different then, I'm sure.

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?

federal law was upheld by this ruling

trumplings, lol
 
It's nice to see how the left supports breaking Federal laws.

That means if any ban on any arms is a Federal law, local law enforcement can tell you asshats to fuck off.


well, it will be different then, I'm sure.

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?

federal law was upheld by this ruling

trumplings, lol
So it's a federal law that states it's ok to break federal laws as long as it's a state doing it.

mmkay
 
It's nice to see how the left supports breaking Federal laws.

That means if any ban on any arms is a Federal law, local law enforcement can tell you asshats to fuck off.


well, it will be different then, I'm sure.

you're not the brightest bulb in the sign, are you?

federal law was upheld by this ruling

trumplings, lol
So it's a federal law that states it's ok to break federal laws as long as it's a state doing it.

mmkay

have an adult read and explain the decision to you, sparky.

it's based on separation of powers, not states' rights.
 

Forum List

Back
Top