Judge Rules Trump Can't Punish 'Sanctuary Cities'

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot punish so-called "sanctuary cities" by withholding federal funding in a way that violates the constitution.

Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office that directed the Department of Justice and Homeland Security that cities and jurisdictions that don't comply with federal immigration laws are "not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary."

Santa Clara County and the city of San Francisco had challenged this particular provision of the order.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III wrote that the injunction does nothing more than "implement the effect of the Government's flawed interpretation of the Order." The injunction does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Homeland Security Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants and neither does it impact the secretary's ability to develop regulations or guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such."

"It does prohibit the Government from exercising Section 9(a) in a way that violates the Constitution," Orrick wrote.

The White House blasted the ruling in a statement late Tuesday from White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer that seemed to forget the role of the judiciary.

"The rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation," he said. "Once again, a single district judge -- this time in San Francisco -- has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country.

"This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping."

Section 9 (a) of the order also stated that "the Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction."

Orrick wrote that based on the arguments made by the government that the order is "an exercise of the president's "bully pulpit" to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement," Section 9(a) only applies to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with federal immigration law.

However, Orrick wrote that by its plain language, the section attempts to reach all federal grants and not merely the three mentioned at the hearing. Any doubt about the scope of the order, Orrick wrote, had been erased by public comments made by the president and the attorney general. He pointed to Trump calling the order a "weapon" and Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying jurisdictions that are not in compliance would suffer “withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants,” and the “claw back” of any funds previously awarded.

Constitutionally, the order cannot place new conditions on federal funds, Orrick wrote. He also ruled that federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened "merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves."

The counties met the burden of showing that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm without an injunction, Orrick wrote.

Read the full order below:

Patch will update this breaking news story.

Protesters against Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez's decision to abide by President Donald Trump's order, that any 'sanctuary' cities could possibly lose federal funding, make themselves heard. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images News/ Getty Images)