Thread: Federal judge says AG Jeff Sessions can’t withhold grant money from sanctuary cities

Federal judge says Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t withhold grant money from sanctuary cities, Associated Press reports

Published September 15, 2017 Fox News

A U.S. federal judge in Chicago ruled Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t withhold grant money from sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal immigration policies, the Associated Press reported.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...s-reports.html

Originally Posted by JohnDoe2

Federal judge says Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t withhold grant money from sanctuary cities, Associated Press reports

Published September 15, 2017 Fox News

A U.S. federal judge in Chicago ruled Friday that Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t withhold grant money from sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal immigration policies, the Associated Press reported.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017...s-reports.html

This makes little sense to me. If the federal government controls the funds, why can't they decide on who gets them and who doesn't? We are talking about grants being giving to local law enforcement, aren't we? These grants are being given by the federal government, which means they should be able to attach requirements for the grant.

Is this Judge a "friend" of Barry Sotero?

Just like the Judge in Hawaii

Did Barry go visit Chicago recently, would like to know

Are there any phone records between this Judge and Barry Boy?

We need the legislation passed, called Davis-Oliver Act. We need it passed now. It should have been passed months ago.

It looks like the judge says DOJ can do it, but only with the approval of congress.
-------------------------
"U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that while the Justice Department can require cities, counties and states to certify that they are complying with federal laws, it cannot implement other conditions without
the express approval of Congress."
====================

Judge Blocks DOJ from Tying Grant Program to Immigration Enforcement

The Justice Department had sought to force sanctuary cities to fully comply with federal immigration enforcement.

By Alan Neuhauser, Staff Writer |Sept. 15, 2017, at 5:13 p.m.


Judge Blocks DOJ from Tying Grant Program to Immigration Enforcement


A federal judge in Chicago on Friday issued a nationwide injunction largely halting a Justice Department directive that had required so-called "sanctuary cities" to comply with federal immigration enforcement or risk or risk millions of dollars in law enforcement grants.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber of the Northern District of Illinois ruled that while the Justice Department can require cities, counties and states to certify that they are complying with federal laws, it cannot implement other conditions without the express approval of Congress.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions had announced in July that jurisdictions would need to give immigration agents access to their jails and provide up to 48 hours' notice before they release an inmate who is both in the country illegally and wanted by immigration authorities. If they did not cooperate, they could lose access to Byrne Justice Assistance Grants, which were allocated about $376 million by Congress in fiscal 2016.

Chicago, which expected to receive $3.2 million through the program this year to buy equipment, sued weeks later to stop the order from taking effect, contending that the order amounted to executive overreach.

Leinenweber, in his ruling, sided with the city.

"The Executive Branch cannot impose the conditions without Congressional authority, and that authority has not been conferred," the judge, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, wrote in his ruling. "The notice and access conditions therefore exceed statutory authority, and, consequently, the efforts to impose them violate the separation of powers doctrine."

The preliminary injunction does not represent a ruling on the case itself, but it does indicate Leinenweber's view that Chicago is "likely to succeed on the merits" of its case.


It also reflects his position that Chicago faced "irreparable harm" if the conditions were allowed to remain in place on the Byrne grants.

"The harm to the city's relationship with the immigrant community if it should accede to the conditions is irreparable. Once such trust is lost, it cannot be repaired through an award of money damages," Leinenweber found.

Simply telling the city it could choose to decline the Byrne grant and leave the sanctuary policies in place, as the Justice Department contended, was also untenable.

"Forcing the City either to decline the grant funds based on what it believes to be unconstitutional conditions or accept them and face an irreparable harm … supports irreparable harm," the judge wrote.

The ruling is the latest setback for the Trump administration in its attempt to crack down on sanctuary jurisdictions and illegal immigration. A federal judge in California in April largely blocked a section of President Donald Trump's executive order that would freeze billions of dollars in federal funds to so-called "sanctuary cities" that do not fully cooperate with immigration enforcement.

Thw victory is sure to be savored by political leaders in Chicago. Sessions and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a Democrat, have been at loggerheads since the start of the Trump administration.

As Sessions and President Donald Trump have repeatedly invoked Chicago and its soaring crime rate to illustrate the threat of a potential crime wave nationwide – and, by implication, the type of lawlessness evinced by sanctuary policies – Emanuel has become one of the administration's most vocal critics and an outspoken opponent of its effort to ramp up immigration enforcement.


Leinenweber did allow a third provision to remain in place: a requirement that jurisdictions show they are complying with all applicable federal laws, including U.S. Code Section 1373, which prohibits restrictions from enacting any policy that prevents public employees from sharing someone's immigration status with the federal government.

"The most natural reading of the statute authorizes the attorney general to require a certification of compliance with all other applicable federal laws, which by the plainest definition includes Section 1373," Leienweber wrote. "The court finds that the attorney general has statutory authority to impose the compliance condition on the Byrne JAG grant."

https://www.usnews.com/news/national...on-enforcement