By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge ruled the Trump administration cannot deny funding to numerous cities and counties due to their policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration efforts. The ruling extends a preliminary injunction preventing the administration from withholding federal funds from “sanctuary” jurisdictions, deeming the administration’s actions an unconstitutional “coercive threat.” The judge also blocked the administration from imposing immigration-related conditions on specific grant programs. The ruling comes after the administration issued executive orders targeting these jurisdictions as part of its efforts to remove individuals in the country illegally and had published a list of “sanctuary jurisdictions”.
Read the original article here
Judge blocks Trump from cutting money to Chicago, LA and other cities over ‘sanctuary’ policies. So, it seems a U.S. District Judge in San Francisco, William Orrick, has just extended a preliminary injunction. This basically means he’s stopping the Trump administration from slashing or attaching conditions to federal funds for cities and counties that are considered “sanctuary” jurisdictions. He’s already protected a bunch of other cities with an earlier order, places like San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle.
It’s hard not to feel like this is a crucial win, even a small one, in a bigger fight. There’s a sense that the administration is targeting these cities because they disagree with its policies, places where the administration might not be welcome or where people aren’t exactly thrilled with the current leadership. The focus on these areas, and not the states with a history of “crime” that are aligned politically, does seem to be a bit of a power play. It’s a move designed to assert control over those who resist.
The potential outcome of all this is definitely a thought that enters into this equation, and while the judge is currently blocking these actions, the Supreme Court looms large. The question of what the highest court in the land will do is always pertinent when dealing with these kinds of legal battles. Still, it’s hard not to see this situation as a concrete example of checks and balances, a crucial element of our government working as intended. Trump, with his perception of unlimited executive power, is facing the resistance built into the system.
It’s also worth noting the argument about the true nature of “sanctuary” jurisdictions. The point is often missed, but the core of the issue isn’t about blocking federal activities. It’s usually about how local resources are being used, not that cities are outright preventing federal agencies from doing their jobs. The frustration from some sides appears to stem from these cities not being willing to fall in line with the federal government’s wishes. It’s a power struggle, plain and simple.
You can see the argument that the focus is on exerting control over those who resist. These efforts to demonize sanctuary cities are pretty ironic, especially when you consider the principles of limited government. It’s frustrating to see the principles of state rights, so often championed, get abandoned the moment a state does something someone doesn’t like.
It’s certainly a question of at what point the resistance might grow. The frustration is palpable, and it’s understandable to think about the possibility of states declining to pay federal taxes. The legal battles ahead, and the likelihood of this issue ultimately landing before the Supreme Court, is certainly there.
The sentiment that the courts might not be enough to save democracy is one that’s been growing stronger. It makes the idea that there may be a need for more than just a legal battle, perhaps even broader action, like a general strike.
The point that one branch of government, the Legislative Branch, has essentially abdicated its responsibility to act as a check on Trump is a valid one. It’s concerning when one branch seemingly fails to do its job, especially in times like these. Add to that the fact that the executive branch often attacks the judicial after such decisions.
It’s the idea that local tax money should be used for local, state, county, and city purposes, not for federal agendas. It’s a simple point, and one that goes hand in hand with the argument that if you support someone, you let them do their job. But the same goes for all levels of government, including all the local, state, etc, politicians who are elected to do their job too.
The fact that Trump’s administration has appointed unqualified people to run (and possibly destroy) the government, while doing nothing to stop the overreach of the Executive Branch, such as the illegal tariffs he’s currently using, is an important thing to keep in mind.