• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

Common Sense 1

Common Sense 1

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 8, 2016
Messages
18,842
Reaction score
13,776
Location
United States
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
If sanctuary cities are going to flaunt federal law there will be a big cost to them now.
Another big win for the Trump administration and the American citizens. :thumbs:


Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

2nd Circuit: “the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions”

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed (h/t Adam Klasfeld). Here’s the summary from the Opinion (emphasis added):

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whetherthe federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal mmigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens….

At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.

In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Given what appears to be a conflict among the Circuits, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (where Trump likely will win again). But in the meantime, the crackdown can continue.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
If sanctuary cities are going to flaunt federal law there will be a big cost to them now.
Another big win for the Trump administration and the American citizens. :thumbs:


Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

2nd Circuit: “the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions”

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed (h/t Adam Klasfeld). Here’s the summary from the Opinion (emphasis added):

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whetherthe federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal mmigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens….

At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.

In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Given what appears to be a conflict among the Circuits, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (where Trump likely will win again). But in the meantime, the crackdown can continue.
Click to expand...

Not really related to this case specifically, but it is like the Federal Government withholding highway funds
from states who refused to raise the drinking age to 21.
I believe that was also tested in the courts, I know Louisiana, did not get Highway funds for several years.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
If sanctuary cities are going to flaunt federal law there will be a big cost to them now.
Another big win for the Trump administration and the American citizens. :thumbs:


Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

2nd Circuit: “the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions”

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed (h/t Adam Klasfeld). Here’s the summary from the Opinion (emphasis added):

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whetherthe federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal mmigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens….

At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.

In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Given what appears to be a conflict among the Circuits, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (where Trump likely will win again). But in the meantime, the crackdown can continue.
Click to expand...
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
 
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...

If it is, then the same thing can be done with states that have legalized marijuana. Marijuana is still federally illegal.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
If sanctuary cities are going to flaunt federal law there will be a big cost to them now.
Another big win for the Trump administration and the American citizens. :thumbs:


Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

2nd Circuit: “the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions”

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed (h/t Adam Klasfeld). Here’s the summary from the Opinion (emphasis added):

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whetherthe federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal mmigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens….

At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.

In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Given what appears to be a conflict among the Circuits, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (where Trump likely will win again). But in the meantime, the crackdown can continue.
Click to expand...

Good!

No tax dollars to entities who break or flout the law. :shrug:
 
Good, enforce our damn immigration laws democrats.
 
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...

The important questions resolved were, for those in the 2nd circuit, the following:

CONCLUSION

To summarize, we conclude as follows:

(1) The Attorney General was statutorily authorized to impose all three challenged conditions on Byrne grant applications.

a. The Certification Condition (1) is statutorily authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D)’s requirement that applicants comply with “all other applicable Federal laws,” and (2) does not violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering principle;

b. The Notice Condition is statutorily authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(4)’s reporting requirement, § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s coordination requirement, and § 10155’s rule‐making authority;

c. The Access Condition is statutorily authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s coordination requirement,
and § 10155’s rule‐making authority.

(2) The Attorney General did not overlook important detrimental effects of the challenged conditions so as to
make their imposition arbitrary and capricious.

Accordingly,

(1) We REVERSE the district court’s award of partial summary judgment to plaintiffs;

(2) We VACATE the district court’s mandate ordering defendants to release withheld 2017 Byrne funds to
plaintiffs, as well as its injunction barring defendants from imposing the three challenged immigration‐related
conditions on such grants; and

(3) We REMAND the case to the district court, a. with directions that it enter partial summary
judgment in favor of defendants on plaintiffs’ challenge to the three immigration‐related conditions
imposed on 2017 Byrne Program grants; and b. insofar as there remains pending in the district court
plaintiffs’ challenge to conditions imposed by defendants on 2018 Byrne Program grants, for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Click to expand...

I support this judgement in both law and in outcome.
 
Last edited:
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...

The same kind of thing where the federal government for years has put requirements on states to get federal highway funds.
I think this issue is more black and white here. They (city and states) have to follow federal law. The Supreme Court will have the final say on the matter.
 
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...

Have you changed your political persuasion recently? Because nothing in a big, top-down Bernie Sanders style government works without Federal coercion of the states.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
The same kind of thing where the federal government for years has put requirements on states to get federal highway funds.
I think this issue is more black and white here. They (city and states) have to follow federal law. The Supreme Court will have the final say on the matter.
Click to expand...

Common Sense...is common sense. However, we are dealing with a judiciary that finds rationalizations to dodge the self-evident. It reminds me of the battle over executive orders, an anti-common sense view that Trump cannot issue an executive order that overturns or modifies an Obama made executive order - just because.

It's an insanely shameless world of law we now live it.
 
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...
I remember the good'ole days when conservatives believed in states' rights. Now, it's ok for the feds to muscle the states because the federal government is controlled by them. It is just more evidence of the hypocrisy on the conservative side.
 
longview said:
Not really related to this case specifically, but it is like the Federal Government withholding highway funds
from states who refused to raise the drinking age to 21.
I believe that was also tested in the courts, I know Louisiana, did not get Highway funds for several years.
Click to expand...

Not really. States are not required to enforce federal law, and blackmailing States to change their laws is illegal. Bush41 tried to blackmail Alaska into creating a State law requiring helmets when riding motorcycles. Alaska went without federal highway funding for two years but never created the law. This case is different. States are not being required to enforce federal law, or add, or alter existing State laws, they are only being asked to provide information concerning illegal immigrants in return for federal funding.

If local law enforcement finds out that a suspect has illegally entered the US, it is not unreasonable to pass that information to federal authorities. Nor is it unreasonable to provide federal authorities the release date of any illegal alien convicted and currently serving time. The last request, providing federal access to the illegal alien, cannot be denied unless the State intends to violate the US Constitution and refuse habeas corpus. In which case federal force would be justified.

Considering States and local government receive federal funding entirely at the discretion of the federal government, and have no entitlement to any federal funding, those federal funds can be withheld for just about any reason the President wishes. On the plus side, it will give the States and local government control over education once again, since all federal education funds will be included when federal funds are cut to sanctuary cities and States. The federal government will lose their ability to further blackmail the States.
 
Chomsky said:
Withholding federal funds so the federal government can force it's influence into local governance is not what I want to see. But it may indeed be Constitutional. I'm eagerly looking forward to SCOTUS weighing-in, because this is a classic example of the continuous conflict between federal authority and local autonomy & rights.
Click to expand...

Why do you think State or local governments should be entitled to any federal funding? It is that dependence on federal funding that causes States to capitulate to the whims of the federal government. States are not truly free while sucking on the tit of the federal government. Nor is it even constitutional for the federal government to be spending a penny on education or social programs. So I'm all in favor of sanctuary cities and States holding their ground and having their federal funding cut. We will all benefit from such an act because it will mean less money that was budgeted will be spent by the federal government.
 
It is a reasonable request for information and providing access cannot be constitutionally denied. However, I still strongly support cutting all federal funding to the States - ALL States. It will eliminate the dependence States and local government have on federal funding, and make it impossible for the federal government to blackmail States in the future. Thus returning education back to the control of the States, where it constitutionally belongs, and taking that control away from the federal government.
 
MTAtech said:
I remember the good'ole days when conservatives believed in states' rights. Now, it's ok for the feds to muscle the states because the federal government is controlled by them. It is just more evidence of the hypocrisy on the conservative side.
Click to expand...

That's a failed talking point. This has nothing to do with State's Rights.

They aren't assisting with federal law enforcement, so they aren't eligible for certain grants aimed at helping them assist federal law enforcement.
 
Glitch said:
Not really. States are not required to enforce federal law, and blackmailing States to change their laws is illegal. Bush41 tried to blackmail Alaska into creating a State law requiring helmets when riding motorcycles. Alaska went without federal highway funding for two years but never created the law. This case is different. States are not being required to enforce federal law, or add, or alter existing State laws, they are only being asked to provide information concerning illegal immigrants in return for federal funding.

If local law enforcement finds out that a suspect has illegally entered the US, it is not unreasonable to pass that information to federal authorities. Nor is it unreasonable to provide federal authorities the release date of any illegal alien convicted and currently serving time. The last request, providing federal access to the illegal alien, cannot be denied unless the State intends to violate the US Constitution and refuse habeas corpus. In which case federal force would be justified.

Considering States and local government receive federal funding entirely at the discretion of the federal government, and have no entitlement to any federal funding, those federal funds can be withheld for just about any reason the President wishes. On the plus side, it will give the States and local government control over education once again, since all federal education funds will be included when federal funds are cut to sanctuary cities and States. The federal government will lose their ability to further blackmail the States.
Click to expand...
I was not saying that it was right or wrong, only that it has happened in the past.
 
Common Sense 1 said:
If sanctuary cities are going to flaunt federal law there will be a big cost to them now.
Another big win for the Trump administration and the American citizens. :thumbs:


Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

2nd Circuit: “the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions”

Appeals Court upholds Trump withholding Justice Department grants from sanctuary cities

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals just reversed (h/t Adam Klasfeld). Here’s the summary from the Opinion (emphasis added):

The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whetherthe federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal mmigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens….

At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.

In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Given what appears to be a conflict among the Circuits, it seems likely that the Supreme Court will take the case (where Trump likely will win again). But in the meantime, the crackdown can continue.
Click to expand...

So now the right is cheering the federal government's 'win' over states rights. Hypocrites.
 
bongsaway said:
So now the right is cheering the federal government's 'win' over states rights. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...


Illegal entry into the United States of America, and everything associated with illegal entry, is not an individual states matter ... it is a federal matter.
 
Barnacle said:
Illegal entry into the United States of America, and everything associated with illegal entry, is not an individual states matter ... it is a federal matter.
Click to expand...

It's a misdemeanor.
 
bongsaway said:
So now the right is cheering the federal government's 'win' over states rights. Hypocrites.
Click to expand...

:doh this is why the left loses people. they never have any idea what the other side argues and when it applies.
So in this case courts and the SCOTUS has determined that immigration is a federal issue.

These grants are federal grants.
all grants come with requirements.

If you do not meet the requirements of the grants then you do not have access to the money being offered.
pretty much all grants are like this.

It is not difficult to understand.
 
ludin said:
:doh this is why the left loses people. they never have any idea what the other side argues and when it applies.
So in this case courts and the SCOTUS has determined that immigration is a federal issue.

These grants are federal grants.
all grants come with requirements.

If you do not meet the requirements of the grants then you do not have access to the money being offered.
pretty much all grants are like this.

It is not difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

We know what you are arguing. Lock them up, seperate the families and deport them. Absolutely no thought that these are only people looking for a better life.
 
bongsaway said:
We know what you are arguing. Lock them up, seperate the families and deport them. Absolutely no thought that these are only people looking for a better life.
Click to expand...

please show me where i argued that. why do you people have to lie so much. all your ranting about lies
and how you hate them but yet here you are.

appeal to emotion is a fallacy not an argument.

I know plenty of people that migrated here to the US legally and the proper way. They are some of my co-workers
and best friends. I love them to death and if they needed anything i would help them out. So if they came here the right
way others can too.
 
ludin said:
please show me where i argued that. why do you people have to lie so much. all your ranting about lies
and how you hate them but yet here you are.

appeal to emotion is a fallacy not an argument.

I know plenty of people that migrated here to the US legally and the proper way. They are some of my co-workers
and best friends. I love them to death and if they needed anything i would help them out. So if they came here the right
way others can too.
Click to expand...

I'm wrong? Then what exactly did you mean since crossing our border illegally is a misdemeanor. Why should our federal government get involved with misdemeanors?
 
bongsaway said:
I'm wrong? Then what exactly did you mean since crossing our border illegally is a misdemeanor. Why should our federal government get involved with misdemeanors?
Click to expand...

that is not the topic of this thread and therefore irrelevant.
Immigration is a federal enforced activity as ruled on by the SCOTUS several times.

this thread is about grants and the right of the federal government to withhold grants if the states do not
comply with the requirements of the grant.

Meaning if i have a 5m dollar grant for local law enforcement, but the city passes laws or other regulations that
say they do not have to comply with requirements Y and Z then they do not qualify for the grant.

because to get the grant you need to comply with X, Y, and Z.
 
dcsports said:
That's a failed talking point. This has nothing to do with State's Rights.

They aren't assisting with federal law enforcement, so they aren't eligible for certain grants aimed at helping them assist federal law enforcement.
Click to expand...

Of course it's states rights. The States have no obligation to cooperate with federal law enforcement. The grants aren't for anything to do with immigration. They are security funding. This denies federal security to the number one terrorist target in America. You'd see how fast that gets restored if it was learned that Trump Tower was a target.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom