Florida Judge Rules Another Trump Immigration Order Unconstitutional

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A county judge in Florida has ruled unconstitutional on Tenth Amendment grounds another of President Donald Trump’s executive orders on immigration, this one concerning federal funding for sanctuary cities.
This week President Trump is signing a new executive order (EO) to replace Executive Order 13769, the one restricting immigration from seven terror-prone nations that had been stayed (i.e., put on hold) by left-leaning judges in first by Washington State and later by the U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit, which the president signed on Jan. 27 of this year.

Often overlooked is an EO the president signed earlier that week. On Jan. 25, Trump issued EO 13768, concerning several other immigration issues, such as prioritizing the removal of criminal aliens.

Regarding “sanctuary cities”—cities and counties that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities on deportations—Section 2(c) of the earlier EO requires federal agencies that such cities “that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.”

James Lacroix is an immigrant from Haiti who is in the United States under a special relief program after his country’s devastating 2010 earthquake. Since arriving, he has repeatedly driven without a license, which became a felony once he was labeled a habitual offender. So now he has been ordered deported after finishing his county jail time.

Lacroix petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus to order his release after he finished serving his jail time. The court for Florida’s Miami-Dade County noted that often:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/03/06/florida-judge-rules-another-trump-immigration-order-unconstitutional/

A county judge has the authority to rule on Constitutional matters and over-rule the President?

I wonder if this is fake news.

[txradioguy]

A county judge has the authority to rule on Constitutional matters and over-rule the President?

I wonder if this is fake news.

Doubt it's fake...but it would be par for the course if the judge is a Liberal.

[driftdiver]

This should be breaking news if true.   A court actually admits there is a 10th amendment!!!!

[skeeter]

Presumably this judge sees nothing unconstitutional about localities refusing to cooperate with the federal government in the discharge of the duties delegated to it under articles two and four of the Constitution.

[thackney]

A county judge has the authority to rule on Constitutional matters and over-rule the President?

I wonder if this is fake news.

While there is a lot of discussion of the Executive Order, this appears to be a ruling on the local policy.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JAMES LACROIX, CASE NO. F17-376
 F17-1770
Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR
as director of the Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections,
Respondent.

http://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/CourtRulings/Lacroix%20Habeas%20Order%20%5B03-03-17%20Judge%20Hirsch%5D.pdf

[IsailedawayfromFR]

While there is a lot of discussion of the Executive Order, this appears to be a ruling on the local policy.

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
JAMES LACROIX, CASE NO. F17-376
 F17-1770
Petitioner,
v.
DANIEL JUNIOR
as director of the Miami-Dade County Department of Corrections,
Respondent.

http://www.jud11.flcourts.org/docs/CourtRulings/Lacroix%20Habeas%20Order%20%5B03-03-17%20Judge%20Hirsch%5D.pdf

Excerpted is the final paragraph:

Of course we must protect our country from the problems associated with unregulated
immigration. We must protect our country from a great many things; but from nothing so much
as from the loss of our historic rights and liberties.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is
respectfully DENIED.
 SO ORDERED, in chambers in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this ____ day of
March, 2017.

The way I read this, it clearly conveys onto the county the right to preserve 'loss of our historic rights and liberties' regardless of the federal government enforcement.

[thackney]

Excerpted is the final paragraph:

Of course we must protect our country from the problems associated with unregulated
immigration. We must protect our country from a great many things; but from nothing so much
as from the loss of our historic rights and liberties.
The petition for writ of habeas corpus is GRANTED. Respondent’s motion to dismiss is
respectfully DENIED.
 SO ORDERED, in chambers in Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida, this ____ day of
March, 2017.

The way I read this, it clearly conveys onto the county the right to preserve 'loss of our historic rights and liberties' regardless of the federal government enforcement.

I wonder how commonly court rulings include Biblical references:

See Joshua 20:1-6,

See also Deut. 4:41-42. ,

 1 Kings 1:50-51. But see 1 Kings 2:28-34,

Also quoting the Federalist Papers:  Federalist 51 at 349

Also I see this as only intended to rule on local policy, regardless of all the discussion of Federal level interests:

Whether any detainer filed by ICE as to Mr. Lacroix is legally sufficient and legally efficacious is a question that could be raised only in federal court. Lacroix does not raise it here.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I wonder how commonly court rulings include Biblical references:

Very few am sure.

Also I see this as only intended to rule on local policy, regardless of all the discussion of Federal level interests:
Whether any detainer filed by ICE as to Mr. Lacroix is legally sufficient and legally efficacious is a question that could be raised only in federal court. Lacroix does not raise it here.

Guess your meaning is one illegally here can only be caught and detained by a federal party and not anyone else.  If true, this will bloat our federal bureaucracy by having to hire many more agents to apprehend, and courts to try.

I doubt this seriously.  Seems a state could request its officers and subsequently local officials to be empowered to apprehend rather than waiting on some federal official to do so.

There is an overwhelming state interest in doing so.

[thackney]

Guess your meaning is one illegally here can only be caught and detained by a federal party and not anyone else.  If true, this will bloat our federal bureaucracy by having to hire many more agents to apprehend, and courts to try.

I doubt this seriously.  Seems a state could request its officers and subsequently local officials to be empowered to apprehend rather than waiting on some federal official to do so.

There is an overwhelming state interest in doing so.

A lot of the argument, including this judgement, contains the cost to detain, and the refusal of the feds to cover that cost.  While their motives may lie elsewhere, this and other judgments typically start with money.  I wonder why this doesn't apply when an arrested individual is wanted in another state.  Do they send them a bill for the holding time?

My point was this was only a ruling on local policy.  It used a lot of federal references to justify that ruling, but it only impacted the local policy.

It likely will be used as justification in other rulings and other locations, but this single judgement doesn't require a change anywhere but at the local Miami-Dade County, Florida.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

A lot of the argument, including this judgement, contains the cost to detain, and the refusal of the feds to cover that cost. 

I find it hard to believe that the feds would not agree to cover the costs to detain illegals apprehended locally.

That is a very poor excuse to use in order to justify sanctuary cities.

A state could even pass a law that covers local costs if the feds have some issue with it, like would be the case under Obama's regime.

[thackney]

I find it hard to believe that the feds would not agree to cover the costs to detain illegals apprehended locally.

I see that reason claimed all the time, along with federal threatening to cut off other money, rather than offer to pay the bill.

Of course the accounting of what would be owed varies greatly depending on the point of view of the payer or the receiver.

[thackney]

That is a very poor excuse to use in order to justify sanctuary cities.

Actually, in my opinion, for those arguing for sanctuary cities (not me), it is a very good excuse as many can relate, nor do they want federal unfunded mandates.  It is the one part of the topic they are likely to gain some support from those who would not otherwise support them.