Trump administration threatens to hold grant money from sanctuary cities

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Trump administration threatens to hold grant money from sanctuary cities

Associated Press
Friday 21 April 2017 18.42 BST

The Trump administration intensified its threats to crack down on so-called sanctuary cities that refuse to comply with federal immigration authorities, sending letters Friday to nine jurisdictions warning it would withhold coveted law enforcement grant money unless they document cooperation.

The letters went to officials in California and in major cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and New Orleans, all places the justice department’s inspector general has identified as limiting the information local law enforcement can provide to federal immigration authorities about those in their custody.

Attorney general Jeff Sessions has increasingly warned that the administration will punish communities that refuse to cooperate with efforts to find and deport immigrants in the country illegally.

In a statement Friday, the justice department said the recipients of its letters are “crumbling under the weight of illegal immigration and violent crime”.

After a raid led to the arrests of 11 MS-13 gang members in California’s Bay Area “city officials seemed more concerned with reassuring illegal immigrants that the raid was unrelated to immigration than with warning other MS-13 members that they were next,” the department said.

[font size=1]-snip-[/font]

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/21/trump-administration-sanctuary-cities-grant-money-crackdown

[Freethinker65]

1. Again?

[Amishman]

4. This was formal written notice from the DoJ, a precursor to actually withholding funds

Sounds like he is serious about it, and is trying to do it in a way that might survive the inevitable legal fight. These 9 locations were identified in reports last year as not cooperating. Now this is the formal allegation of their failure to comply. I think Trump learned from his Muslim ban and is trying to lay the groundwork to defend it in court.

I see this ending in a 5-4 SCOTUS decision a year or two from now

[Billy Jingo]

2. Sauce for the Goose

We adhere to that principle today, and conclude categorically, as we concluded categorically in New York: "The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program." Id., at 188. The mandatory obligation imposed on CLEOs to perform background checks on prospective handgun purchasers plainly runs afoul of that rule.

Printz v United States


The States, however, argue that the Medicaid expansion is far from the typical case. They object that Congress has “crossed the line distinguishing encouragement from coercion,” New York, supra, at 175, in the way it has structured the funding: Instead of simply refusing to grant the new funds to States that will not accept the new conditions, Congress has also threatened to withhold those States’ existing Medicaid funds. The States claim that this threat serves no purpose other than to force unwilling States to sign up for the dramatic expansion in health care coverage effected by the Act.

Given the nature of the threat and the programs at issue here, we must agree. We have upheld Congress’s authority to condition the receipt of funds on the States’ complying with restrictions on the use of those funds, because that is the means by which Congress ensures that the funds are spent according to its view of the “general Welfare.” Conditions that do not here govern the use of the funds, however, cannot be justified on that basis. When, for example, such conditions take the form of threats to terminate other significant independent grants, the conditions are properly viewed as a means of pressuring the States to accept policy changes.

National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius

[Tanuki]

3. ACLU will see him in court

https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/trumps-executive-actions-today-demonstrate-he-will-follow-through-his

...."President Trump does not have the legal authority to unilaterally defund cities and states that protect people’s rights and stay clear of the deportation business. While he may be counting on cities to buckle under the pressure of his bully pulpit, cities and local law enforcement officials have already begun preparing to defend their lawful policies.

We will support cities and states in suing the federal government should they attempt to enforce President Trump’s executive order. Any attempt from the federal government to commandeer state and local governments into carrying out federal policies will violate the 10th Amendment, and attempts to coerce local entities into action by withholding funds violates the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The law is clear on this, and President Trump is out of line.

Sanctuary cities represent the best this country has to offer: a spirit of inclusiveness and respect for individual rights. These are the principles that we will continue to fight for against all who try to root it out. "

[Me.]

5. Then, Can My City Withhold Taxes?

We NYers should find out what our options are and then call his bluff. Maybe we can shut down that hideous bldg. of his.

[Lint Head]

6. Blackmail is the typical go to for criminals.

[MichMan]

7. Wasn't highway money withheld before?

Didn't the Federal government withhold highway funds from states to force them to comply with 55 mph speed limits and stricter drunk driving laws?