A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Justice Department does have power under the law to withhold federal grant money from communities that refuse to share information with ICE, giving President Trump a major victory in the escalating battle with sanctuary cities.
The decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stands in contrast to rulings by a number of other courts, and could make the sanctuary issue ripe for a Supreme Court challenge.
Judge Reena Raggi, a Bush appointee to the 2nd Circuit, said jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate are flouting federal law, and yet were begging for federal money.
“There is something disquieting in the idea of states and localities seeking federal funds to enforce their own laws while themselves hampering the enforcement of federal laws, or worse, violating those laws,” she wrote in the opinion for the three-judge panel.
She pointed out that the Trump administration’s stance is not new, and that the Obama administration began to take similar steps at the end of its tenure.
The ruling clears the way for the government to withhold Byrne Justice Assistance Grant money from some of the plaintiffs — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts and Virginia — though not all of them.
That’s because some of them are covered under some of those other conflicting appeals court rulings.
The Justice Department still claimed victory.
“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the Attorney General to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” the department said in a statement.
The fight is over what’s known as Section 1373, written by Congress in 1996, which says localities applying for certain pots of money from the Justice Department may not block their employees from sharing information with Homeland Security “regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
The Trump administration issued guidance saying that to comply with that, localities needed to certify that they were in compliance with the law, that they would honor information requests from Homeland Security, and that they would allow immigration authorities access to their prisons and jails.
Sanctuary states and cities objected, saying the administration cut too many corners in announcing the new policy, and went beyond the terms of the law. They also argued Section 1373 itself was unconstitutional because it violated states’ sovereignty.
Other courts agreed, but the 2nd Circuit rejected each of those arguments.
Other courts have backed those claims in other cases, and a district court did in this case.
But the 2nd Circuit rejected each of those arguments.
Judge Raggi said it makes sense for the government to condition grant money, which pays to prosecute and incarcerate people, on cooperation with Homeland Security, since some of those people are going to be deportable.
She said but for the state’s incarceration, Homeland Security would be able to carry out its own duty to deport them.
“In such circumstances, coordination between the State and DHS is not only appropriate, but necessary, to allow the federal agency effectively to resume its obligations when the
State has achieved its penal ones,” she wrote.
She was joined in her ruling by Judge Jose A. Cabranes, a Clinton appointee, and Judge Ralph K. Winter, a Reagan appointee.
By Stephen Dinan - The Washington Times - Wednesday, February 26, 2020