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
BumRushDaShow
(129,125 posts)Congress (specifically the House) has the power of the purse and...
<...>
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
(51,611 posts)I wonder how long that will last with all of the Mr. Nationalist's judicial appointments recently.
winstars
(4,220 posts)NCjack
(10,279 posts)get in, we need to undo some appointments.
BumRushDaShow
(129,125 posts)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.