Judge: Sessions can’t deny grant money for sanctuary cities

[bigheadfred]

https://apnews.com/ed57b001f47c4c39b070d00652ba65d3

CHICAGO (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t follow through — at least for now — with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to impose new tough immigration policies, a judge ruled Friday in a legal defeat for the Trump administration.

In what is at least a temporary victory for cities that have defied Sessions, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber ruled that the Justice Department could not impose the requirements.

He said the city had shown a “likelihood of success” in arguing that Sessions exceeded his authority with the new conditions. Among them are requirements that cities notify immigration agents when someone in the country illegally is about to be released from local jails and to allow agents access to the jails.

[bigheadfred]

He said the city had shown a “likelihood of success”

Who do I go after first?

If the quotation is accurate citations, please.

Start with Constitutionality legislative decree. or EO.

[240B]

What we continue to see, since Trump was elected, is a concerted national effort of Courts to overthrow the Executive Branch of government.

This is a civil war. It is an attempted coup d'etat by the Judicial over the Executive. America is founded on three foundations. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Since the majority of the Legislative and Judicial branches do not recognize the authority of President Trump as leader of the Executive branch simply based on the fact that they do not like him, they are actively blocking (usurping) his authority at any chance they get.

Far from 'interpreting law', the Legislative branch has now taken it upon themselves to create 'law'. And more than that, they are now cancelling Executive orders and creating new ones, based on no authority whatsoever.

If the goal is to disrupt America; if the goal is to disrupt the functioning of the American government, then it doesn't matter if what they are doing is constitutional, or even if it is legal. The amount of time and effort it will take the Trump administration to 'right-the-ship' is their goal. It is a direct form of sabotage. If the goal is just to throw a wrench into the works, it doesn't matter. Just the time it takes to fix it is enough for the saboteur.

They know this. They are counting on it. Until the Supreme Court (if there is still such a thing) puts some kind of blanket restriction on these little nobody judges, to stop them from directly interfering with American National Policy, even if Trump or his administration decides to name a new highway it will be blocked by some judge in some court somewhere in Nowhereville, just to make them have to deal with it.

If disruption is the only goal, without consideration of actual success or even if it makes sense, then that is the simplest thing in world to accomplish. And that is exactly what they are doing.

[rangerrebew]

Jeff Sessions can't withhold grant money from sanctuary cities, judge rules

Published September 15, 2017
 
A federal judge in Chicago has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions can't withhold public grant money from so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal immigration policies.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber made the ruling Friday, in which he granted Chicago's request for a temporary "nationwide" injunction.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/15/federal-judge-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-can-t-withhold-grant-money-from-sanctuary-cities-associated-press-reports.html

[Bigun]

Here's the opinion:

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000015e-878c-d7ac-a3fe-f7af7c550001&fref=gc&dti=1572322196339726

My comments follow:

In a nutshell: the federal grant statute at issue allows the AG to condition grant money on the grant recipient's certification of compliance with applicable federal law, which the court held included a statute (section 1373) forbidding local government from barring its employees from voluntarily reporting immigration status to the INS. The court then held that section 1373 was facially unconstitutional under Printz because it "in effect" would result in compelling cities to engage in enforcement of federal immigration law.

It's clever, but I don't think this will fly in the 7th Circuit. Section 1373 does not pose the kind of 10th A commandeering concerns that doomed the Brady Bill. Furthermore, I don't love that Section 1373 was facially attacked. The statute under attack was the grant statute. I think an as-applied constitutional review should have occurred; let's face it, when local governments accept bajillions of dollars in federal law enforcement grant money, the Feds are entitled to attach "strings."

[Mesaclone]

What we continue to see, since Trump was elected, is a concerted national effort of Courts to overthrow the Executive Branch of government.

This is a civil war. It is an attempted coup d'etat by the Judicial over the Executive. America is founded on three foundations. The Executive, the Legislative, and the Judicial. Since the majority of the Legislative and Judicial branches do not recognize the authority of President Trump as leader of the Executive branch simply based on the fact that they do not like him, they are actively blocking (usurping) his authority at any chance they get.

Far from 'interpreting law', the Legislative branch has now taken it upon themselves to create 'law'. And more than that, they are now cancelling Executive orders and creating new ones, based on no authority whatsoever.

If the goal is to disrupt America; if the goal is to disrupt the functioning of the American government, then it doesn't matter if what they are doing is constitutional, or even if it is legal. The amount of time and effort it will take the Trump administration to 'right-the-ship' is their goal. It is a direct form of sabotage. If the goal is just to throw a wrench into the works, it doesn't matter. Just the time it takes to fix it is enough for the saboteur.

They know this. They are counting on it. Until the Supreme Court (if there is still such a thing) puts some kind of blanket restriction on these little nobody judges, to stop them from directly interfering with American National Policy, even if Trump or his administration decides to name a new highway it will be blocked by some judge in some court somewhere in Nowhereville, just to make them have to deal with it.

If disruption is the only goal, without consideration of actual success or even if it makes sense, then that is the simplest thing in world to accomplish. And that is exactly what they are doing.

Sadly I agree with this...its a more disturbing threat to the nature of our Republic than anything else I see in our modern politic. Legislators can bicker and quibble, compromise and betray...as they battle to make law...that is what the system is designed for. But when judges start...not interpreting law...but are quite simply asserting their own personal judgment over that of the Executive...that removes the base structure of the Republic (separation of powers doctrine). This seems to be modus operandi for liberal judges...a belief that they empowered to rule not on the constitutionality of law/Executive orders...but on their opinion of its "suitability".

This imbalance, this judicial coup as you call it, is almost certain to lead to a constitutional crisis. At some point, a President is going to simply ignore the court and use HIS inherent power to say..."you enforce your ruling, because I will not". If that president has the majority support in EITHER house of congress, he will win that fight. The problem is, as that practice becomes acceptable, future presidents will now be able to pick and choose which laws to follow and which to ignore (sadly, this already happens as with Obama on immigration law). The end result, is a failure of the rule of law...and all the fault of judicial overreach.

[Suppressed]

But when judges start...not interpreting law...but are quite simply asserting their own personal judgment over that of the Executive...that removes the base structure of the Republic (separation of powers doctrine).

Then it's up to The People to take action.

Will they, or are they too lazy to impeach?

[Mesaclone]

Then it's up to The People to take action.

Will they, or are they too lazy to impeach?

I think we may need to find a way to put congress into the balancing equation. They don't have time to have impeachment trials, given that there are 874 Article III justices and roughly 3300 Federal judges...there is simply no practical way they can police and discipline that large a group. If they tried, they would be bogged down in impeachment trials 24/7/365. Article III conditions a judge’s tenure on continued “good Behaviour”; the clear implication is that misbehavior can terminate a judge’s stay in office. So this could, theoretically, be done constitutionally without employing a full impeachment process...which is simply impractical.

From the Yale Law Journal (http://www.yalelawjournal.org/forum/removing-federal-judges-without-impeachment).

In addition to other tenure-terminating contingencies, Article II, Section 4 provides for impeachment as an alternative means of removal: “The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” This additional means of removal does not negate or displace other tenure-terminating provisions. Everyone concedes this point with respect to executive officials; no one thinks that because a Secretary of State can be impeached, he or she can be removed only through impeachment. There is no reason for a different conclusion with respect to judges. In fact, the impeachment provisions do not single out or even expressly mention judges: like Secretaries of State, judges are simply included in the general category of “civil officers of the United States.”

As to HOW congress could remove judges who ignore the constitution and attempt to impose their "judgement" for that of the other branches, a process can be put in place that requires a simple vote, not a super majority as for impeachment. The judge still gets a fair review and can defend themselves, but once complete...congress could then bundle a large number of judicial removals into a single vote. See this conclusion from the same journal below:

Congress clearly can adopt measures to help the chambers impeach and convict. But Congress can go further and adopt statutes that remove judges upon proof of judicial misbehavior. Any such procedures would have to afford an accused judge the due process rights associated with conviction for a serious offense. But a procedure meeting those demanding requirements could culminate in removal—without the need for a wholly independent impeachment procedure.

So congress can pass a law, set up a review board that allows for judicial process...and remove judges it deems to be acting with "judicial misbehavior", a term that absolutely can apply to imposing on the powers of the other two branches of government beyond the original intentions of the Founding document.

That said, there can be abuse of such a system by EITHER party...but at least those party's are subject to the approval of the voters, and can be removed if they act in an extreme, unfair or unethical manner. So, while this is in some ways problematic, we are currently moving in a way that seems to be destroying the "balance of powers" as the Judicial branch collectively is assuming legislative AND executive functions. That is the clear and present danger right now...and congress must, IMHO, move to re-balance our Republic.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

https://apnews.com/ed57b001f47c4c39b070d00652ba65d3

CHICAGO (AP) — Attorney General Jeff Sessions can’t follow through — at least for now — with his threat to withhold public safety grant money to Chicago and other so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to impose new tough immigration policies, a judge ruled Friday in a legal defeat for the Trump administration.

In what is at least a temporary victory for cities that have defied Sessions, U.S. District Judge Harry D. Leinenweber ruled that the Justice Department could not impose the requirements.

He said the city had shown a “likelihood of success” in arguing that Sessions exceeded his authority with the new conditions. Among them are requirements that cities notify immigration agents when someone in the country illegally is about to be released from local jails and to allow agents access to the jails.

This whole episode is absurb.  First, of course Sessions can withhold the money.  The judge, nor anyone in the Judiciary can keep him from it.  It is completely voluntary on his part of whether he wishes to honor a judgement by the court.  The title is erroneous as he can do it, whether he will is another question.

Secondly, for a member of the judicial to assume it is the sole person who can interpret our laws is not what our Constitution says.  All three branches have the duty to uphold the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution.
Once we all agree that only the Judicial can decide what parts of the Constitution mean, then we have effectively ceded the control of this country to an unelected, black-robed mob.  I believe our Founders intended our duly elected representatives were the ones to lead this country instead.

In other words, Sessions does not have to abide by this court decision if he does not want to.  If he does, it is completely voluntary on his part.

The judiciary is getting close to overplaying its hand.  They are intruding into the domain of the other branches when they solely believe they can decide what the Constitution says.  If they finally go to far, they will be reduced to irrelevancy.

[Fishrrman]

Mesaclone wrote:
"This imbalance, this judicial coup as you call it, is almost certain to lead to a constitutional crisis. At some point, a President is going to simply ignore the court and use HIS inherent power to say..."you enforce your ruling, because I will not". If that president has the majority support in EITHER house of congress, he will win that fight."

You're on the right track, but this isn't how to win this fight.

The issue is whether a single federal judge at the trial court level can set national policy through judicial fiat.

One cannot and should not. This goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the SUPREME COURT to adjudicate in such matters.

The way this scenario procedes is thus:

Mr. Trump should make a public declaration that national policy cannot be established nor bound by the opinions or declarations of a single judge -- that such power resides in the collective judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court alone.

And that although the federal courts at the trial and appellate levels may issue -opinions- that regulations, laws or policies are null or unconstitutional, such opinions will not be enforceable until having been adjudicated before the High Court.

Call this "The Trump Doctrine", if you wish.

There will be howls of outcry, from the left, from the media, and perhaps even from some Republicans in Congress. Let them howl, the president must stand firm.

And then he must request that the Supreme Court either support him in this, or rule against him. He should point out that if the Court rules against him, then any federal judge will have the same and equal authority as the combined bench of the Supreme Court itself.

Now I don't know about you, but if I was a Justice of the High Court, I'd be concerned about this. It's no small achievement to become a member of that court, even of its leftist wing. After all that work rising to that position, should some young pipsqueak judge at the Circuit Court level be granted the same "judicial weight" as that of an S.C. Justice?

And... let it go at that.
The Court will have to decide, one way or the other.
If it decides against Mr. Trump, well, so be it.

But then again, consider if YOU were one of the Justices...
Should Harry D. Leinenweber have the same authority as do YOU?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Mesaclone wrote:
"This imbalance, this judicial coup as you call it, is almost certain to lead to a constitutional crisis. At some point, a President is going to simply ignore the court and use HIS inherent power to say..."you enforce your ruling, because I will not". If that president has the majority support in EITHER house of congress, he will win that fight."

You're on the right track, but this isn't how to win this fight.

The issue is whether a single federal judge at the trial court level can set national policy through judicial fiat.

One cannot and should not. This goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the SUPREME COURT to adjudicate in such matters.

The way this scenario procedes is thus:

Mr. Trump should make a public declaration that national policy cannot be established nor bound by the opinions or declarations of a single judge -- that such power resides in the collective judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court alone.

And that although the federal courts at the trial and appellate levels may issue -opinions- that regulations, laws or policies are null or unconstitutional, such opinions will not be enforceable until having been adjudicated before the High Court.

Call this "The Trump Doctrine", if you wish.

There will be howls of outcry, from the left, from the media, and perhaps even from some Republicans in Congress. Let them howl, the president must stand firm.

And then he must request that the Supreme Court either support him in this, or rule against him. He should point out that if the Court rules against him, then any federal judge will have the same and equal authority as the combined bench of the Supreme Court itself.

Now I don't know about you, but if I was a Justice of the High Court, I'd be concerned about this. It's no small achievement to become a member of that court, even of its leftist wing. After all that work rising to that position, should some young pipsqueak judge at the Circuit Court level be granted the same "judicial weight" as that of an S.C. Justice?

And... let it go at that.
The Court will have to decide, one way or the other.
If it decides against Mr. Trump, well, so be it.

But then again, consider if YOU were one of the Justices...
Should Harry D. Leinenweber have the same authority as do YOU?

Good, rationale thinking in all of that.

The ability of a political hack of a single minor judge to stop the entire Executive branch is a great concern.  POTUS has every right to assert that the Constitution does not give Constitutional Authority to any court but the Supreme Court; hence, the clear Constitutional authority given the Executive is prioritized over a lower court ruling and can be ignored.

The elephant in the room is what you discern:  The Constitution also does not give authority for even the Supreme Court to over-rule Constitutional actions of the Executive or Congress either.  They all have the ability to interpret the Constitution as to their authorities within that document.

[Oceander]

Tinfoil hat time. 

[Sanguine]

Mesaclone wrote:
"This imbalance, this judicial coup as you call it, is almost certain to lead to a constitutional crisis. At some point, a President is going to simply ignore the court and use HIS inherent power to say..."you enforce your ruling, because I will not". If that president has the majority support in EITHER house of congress, he will win that fight."

You're on the right track, but this isn't how to win this fight.

The issue is whether a single federal judge at the trial court level can set national policy through judicial fiat.

One cannot and should not. This goes all the way back to Marbury v. Madison, which established the right of the SUPREME COURT to adjudicate in such matters.

The way this scenario procedes is thus:

Mr. Trump should make a public declaration that national policy cannot be established nor bound by the opinions or declarations of a single judge -- that such power resides in the collective judgment of the U.S. Supreme Court alone.

And that although the federal courts at the trial and appellate levels may issue -opinions- that regulations, laws or policies are null or unconstitutional, such opinions will not be enforceable until having been adjudicated before the High Court.

Call this "The Trump Doctrine", if you wish.

There will be howls of outcry, from the left, from the media, and perhaps even from some Republicans in Congress. Let them howl, the president must stand firm.

And then he must request that the Supreme Court either support him in this, or rule against him. He should point out that if the Court rules against him, then any federal judge will have the same and equal authority as the combined bench of the Supreme Court itself.

Now I don't know about you, but if I was a Justice of the High Court, I'd be concerned about this. It's no small achievement to become a member of that court, even of its leftist wing. After all that work rising to that position, should some young pipsqueak judge at the Circuit Court level be granted the same "judicial weight" as that of an S.C. Justice?

And... let it go at that.
The Court will have to decide, one way or the other.
If it decides against Mr. Trump, well, so be it.

But then again, consider if YOU were one of the Justices...
Should Harry D. Leinenweber have the same authority as do YOU?

That makes sense. 

[Sanguine]

Tinfoil hat time.

What is?

[Oceander]

What is?

Deep state judicial conspiracies and the belief that the executive can and should willfully ignore the decisions of the judicial branch. 

[Suppressed]

Deep state judicial conspiracies and the belief that the executive can and should willfully ignore the decisions of the judicial branch.

That's more than tinfoil hat...that's outright . . . Oh, nevermind.

Let's just say there woukd be grounds for POTUS impeachment.

[Sanguine]

Deep state judicial conspiracies and the belief that the executive can and should willfully ignore the decisions of the judicial branch.

So, how would you handle judicial overreach?

[Free Vulcan]

I guess I'm confused here - when the circuit or appelate courts ruled against Obama, it only seemed to apply to their jurisdictions. Now that Trump is prez, every tinhorn lower court judge who doesn't even have real standing can make it national policy.

If I were Trump, I'd almost think of suing to clarify that. I'd say I'd hope Congress would pass legislation as making SCOTUS only as the one who can make it national, but they can't even hardly pass basic laws right now.

[truth_seeker]

Congress and the President could and should pass bills to make the money not even apply to agencies, cities, counties and states that do not fully cooperate.

Right away. this week. Not next week, next month, after vacation, next session, etc.

Like a business. Cooperation should be a pre-condition. And a condition. Clearly.

[Oceander]

So, how would you handle judicial overreach?

In this case this is not even a judgment, it's a temporary injunction, and it only binds the parties to the case and, in particular, only binds the government with respect to the parties to this case. 

Beyond that, that is what courts of appeal are for: to review the actions of a lower court and correct those that are wrong. 

Happens all the time. 

[Sanguine]

In this case this is not even a judgment, it's a temporary injunction, and it only binds the parties to the case and, in particular, only binds the government with respect to the parties to this case. 

Beyond that, that is what courts of appeal are for: to review the actions of a lower court and correct those that are wrong. 

Happens all the time.

And, of course, there's been one lower court ruling after another, effectively shutting down this method of enforcement of actual laws.

[Oceander]

And, of course, there's been one lower court ruling after another, effectively shutting down this method of enforcement of actual laws.

And what have the courts of appeal said?

[driftdiver]

And what have the courts of appeal said?

So far they've agreed with the lower courts.

Now that's 

[Chosen Daughter]

Jeff Sessions can't withhold grant money from sanctuary cities, judge rules

Published September 15, 2017
 
A federal judge in Chicago has ruled Attorney General Jeff Sessions can't withhold public grant money from so-called sanctuary cities for refusing to follow federal immigration policies.

U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber made the ruling Friday, in which he granted Chicago's request for a temporary "nationwide" injunction.
 
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/15/federal-judge-says-attorney-general-jeff-sessions-can-t-withhold-grant-money-from-sanctuary-cities-associated-press-reports.html

He has no right to make "nationwide rulings"  furthermore, and I am no expert it would seem to me he would not be able to override Federal Law.  Am I wrong?

[Sanguine]

He has no right to make "nationwide rulings"  furthermore, and I am no expert it would seem to me he would not be able to override Federal Law.  Am I wrong?

I think you're correct on both counts.