Latest Breaking News

DonViejo

(60,536 posts) Wed Oct 24, 2018, 04:12 PM Oct 2018

Court rules part of Trump order on sanctuary city funding is unconstitutional

Source: The Hill

BY AVERY ANAPOL - 10/24/18 03:46 PM EDT

A federal court has ruled against the Trump administration in a lawsuit over funding for “sanctuary cities.”

U.S. District Judge Richard Jones wrote in a Wednesday judgement that part of President Trump's executive order to end federal grant funding for sanctuary cities is unconstitutional.

Jones, an appointee of former President George W. Bush, ruled that it “would be unconstitutional” for the administration to withhold funding from the cities of Seattle and Portland, the two plaintiffs named in the lawsuit.

The lawsuit named Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen as defendants.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/413000-federal-court-rules-part-of-trump-order-on-sanctuary-city-funding-is

5 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Court rules part of Trump order on sanctuary city funding is unconstitutional (Original Post) DonViejo Oct 2018 OP

Of course it is. BumRushDaShow Oct 2018 #1

I am so glad the courts are protecting us still. BigmanPigman Oct 2018 #2

I hope Portland and Seattle don't have riots in protest, like in California recently. winstars Oct 2018 #3

On to the Supreme Court, where the ruling will be reversed. When DEMs NCjack Oct 2018 #4

They can't f with appropriations law BumRushDaShow Oct 2018 #5

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)

1. Of course it is.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2018, 04:24 PM

Oct 2018

Congress (specifically the House) has the power of the purse and...

Article I

<...>

Section 9.

<...>

No money shall be drawn from the treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.

<...>

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

When they appropriate, they designate the amounts and uses and in this case, the Executive could not unilaterally change the funding provisions/stipulations after they had already been signed into law.

BigmanPigman

(51,609 posts)

2. I am so glad the courts are protecting us still.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2018, 04:30 PM

Oct 2018

I wonder how long that will last with all of the Mr. Nationalist's judicial appointments recently.

winstars

(4,220 posts)

3. I hope Portland and Seattle don't have riots in protest, like in California recently.

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2018, 04:31 PM

Oct 2018

NCjack

(10,279 posts)

4. On to the Supreme Court, where the ruling will be reversed. When DEMs

Reply to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Oct 24, 2018, 04:48 PM

Oct 2018

get in, we need to undo some appointments.

BumRushDaShow

(129,096 posts)

5. They can't f with appropriations law

Reply to NCjack (Reply #4)

Wed Oct 24, 2018, 06:35 PM

Oct 2018

The SCOTUS would basically tell them to tell Congress to just re-write the next set of appropriations to exclude "Sanctuary cities" (or since that might qualify as a bill of attainder, then just create stipulations for receiving the funds that would have the same effect) and a GOP Congress would comply.

Reply to this discussion