The Ninth District Court of Appeals is the whose rulings are most frequently overturned by the United States Supreme Court. (Source)
It is made up of far left-wing progressives, socialists, Marxists and likely a communist or two sprinkled in with the group.
The share one commonality, they rarely follow the U.S. Constitution and adjudicate from the bench.
They can rule as they wish on the funding for sanctuary cities, but watch the United States Congress who makes the law while the House of Representatives funds it, make no funds available.
In one of their more brilliant decisions, they overturned the right of the individual to carry a concealed weapon after the individual was issued a permit. (Source)
A federal judge in San Francisco has blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.
The Truth About Sanctuary Cities and Crime Rates (Source)
Of the 8,145 individuals released, 1,867 were subsequently re-arrested a total of 4,298 times and accumulated a staggering 7,491 charges.
So much for the argument that sanctuary cities have no impact on crime. (Source)
By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press
April 25, 2017
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — A federal judge on Tuesday blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities, saying the president has no authority to attach new conditions to federal spending.
The decision will stay in place while the lawsuit works its way through court.
The Trump administration and two California governments that sued over the order disagreed about its scope during a recent court hearing.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that it threatened billions of dollars in federal funding for each of them, making it difficult to plan their budgets.
“It’s not like it’s just some small amount of money,” John Keker, an attorney for Santa Clara County, told Orrick at the April 14 hearing.
Chad Readler, acting assistant attorney general, said the county and San Francisco were interpreting the executive order too broadly.
The funding cutoff applies to three Justice Department and Homeland Security Department grants that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status, he said.
Factually, there are more felonious crimes, murder, assault rape and other crimes of violence of those that the do-gooders who put this legislation in place will admit. (Source)
The order would affect less than $1 million in funding for Santa Clara County and possibly no money for San Francisco, Readler said.
Republican President Donald Trump was using a “bully pulpit” to “encourage communities and states to comply with the law,” Readler said.
In his ruling, Orrick sided with San Francisco and Santa Clara, saying the order “by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing.”
The video below was made by CNN, ergo it can’t be taken in its entirety as true.
“The rest of the order is broader still, addressing all federal funding,” Orrick said.
“And if there was doubt about the scope of the order, the president and attorney general have erased it with their public comments.”
He said: “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 Trump administration says sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe.
San Francisco and other sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erode the trust that’s needed to get people to report a crime.
The order also has led to lawsuits by Seattle; two Massachusetts cities, Lawrence and Chelsea; and a third San Francisco Bay Area government, the city of Richmond. The San Francisco and Santa Clara County suits were the first to get a hearing before a judge.
San Francisco and the county argued in court documents that the president did not have the authority to set conditions on the allocation of federal funds and could not force local officials to enforce federal immigration law.
They also said Trump’s order applied to local governments that didn’t detain immigrants for possible deportation in response to federal requests, not just those that refused to provide people’s immigration status.
The Department of Justice responded that the city and county’s lawsuits were premature because decisions about withholding funds and what local governments qualified as sanctuary cities had yet to be made.
The sanctuary city order was among a flurry of immigration measures Trump has signed since taking office in January, including a ban on travelers from seven Muslim-majority countries and a directive calling for a wall on the border with Mexico.
A federal appeals court blocked the travel ban. The administration then revised it, but the new version also is stalled in court.