Our readers may be aware of the recent decision in the lawsuit by the family of Kate Steinle, a victim of San Francisco’s sanctuary city policy. The following represents the analysis of the Steinle ruling by someone whose expertise is the law.

The court dismissed the family’s lawsuit against theCounty and City of San Francisco and former Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi. The court did allow one claim to go forward: the negligence claim against the federal government because a federal Bureau of Land Management ranger left his handgun in a backpack in an unlocked car in downtown San Francisco, which is how the criminal alien obtained the gun he used to murder Kate Steinle, an innocent American citizen.

I am extremely upset that the judge dismissed the case against San Francisco and Mirkarimi over their sanctuary policies. The basis of the claim that I was really hopeful about was 42 U.S.C. Section 1983: every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance or policy of any state, causes any citizen to be deprived of their civil rights (here, the right to life) shall pay money damages to the party injured (Kate Steinle). The idea being that San Francisco’s sanctuary law and policy, in contravention of federal law, deprived Kate Steinle of her life...
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2017...egal-analysis/