News

Permanent injunction issued in sanctuary city order

Ruling is 'a historic victory,' says Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President Dave Cortese

A federal judge on Monday ruled that an executive order issued by President Donald Trump earlier this year that threatened to block funding for sanctuary jurisdictions is unconstitutional and issued an injunction to block it permanently.

President Trump on Jan. 25 issued the executive order that threatened to deny federal funding to cities and counties deemed to be sanctuary jurisdictions shielding undocumented immigrants from federal deportation.

The city of San Francisco sued to challenge the law on Jan. 31 and Santa Clara County did the same on Feb. 3. The two local governments filed motions asking U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco to declare Trump's order unconstitutional and permanently block it from going into effect.

In April, Orrick issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the order from being implemented until a full trial could be held.

Monday's ruling makes the injunction permanent.

"This is a historic victory, protecting residents of the County and jurisdictions across the nation from President Donald Trump's unconstitutional abuse of power," Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors President David Cortese said in a statement. "Our County will continue to welcome and embrace all people, no matter how much this administration tries to threaten or divide us," Cortese said.

"This is a victory of the American people and the rule of law. This Executive Order was unconstitutional before the ink on it was even dry," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said in a statement.

Santa Clara County had said in its brief that it receives $1.7 billion, or 35 percent of its budget, in federal or federally dependent funds annually. San Francisco had said it receives $1.2 billion per year in federal funds, or 13 percent of its annual budget, plus another $800 million in multi-year grants.

---

Follow the Palo Alto Weekly/Palo Alto Online on Twitter @PaloAltoWeekly and Facebook for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

— Bay City News Service

What is democracy worth to you?
Support local journalism.

Comments

15 people like this
Posted by Teresa
a resident of Palo Verde
on Nov 21, 2017 at 12:06 pm

Thank goodness for this!!!!! We certainly need a historic victory, to make us feel empowered!!!! Our president needs to know that there are decent people out here who do not appreciate his bullying, and threats. We are a democracy, and his extreme views and ridiculous executive orders in no way reflect the views of the people. Thank heavens for the Judge who sticks to the law of the land... Thank you!!!


2 people like this
Posted by Jack Wilson
a resident of Portola Valley
on Nov 21, 2017 at 12:46 pm

Where is the Constitution here? If you give too much money to a federal Government that is thought to send back the money to you, good luck. We better hope this will make things better, but logically it doesn't. There is a difference between good and bad people, where do you stand?


6 people like this
Posted by Calmdown
a resident of Barron Park
on Nov 21, 2017 at 1:00 pm

[Post removed.]


13 people like this
Posted by member
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2017 at 1:09 pm

This Judge seems to be making up the law, as he goes along. I don't mind a liberal or conservative Judge expressing opinions but he had better use the law, instead of statements made by politicians. If he fails to use existing laws, his rulings will probably be reversed.


13 people like this
Posted by member
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2017 at 1:14 pm

This Judge seems to be making up the law, as he goes along. I don't mind a liberal or conservative Judge expressing opinions but he had better use the law, instead of statements made by politicians. If he fails to use existing laws, his rulings will probably be reversed. When I review the history of this Judge, I wonder if he ever should have been appointed. His financial support for former President Obama, and lack of legal knowledge leads me to believe he is unfit to be a federal judge. I sure hope, being an independent voter, I never end up in his court. He would ask what party I'm registered in then rule against me.


18 people like this
Posted by Here comes the judge
a resident of Community Center
on Nov 21, 2017 at 1:22 pm

"This Judge seems to be making up the law, as he goes along."

**seems to be** filled by zero analysis, just ad hominems.

Best ya got there,bucko?

Another republican that got too embarrassed to stay in the GOP, and registered as an independent. How do you like Trump's nominations?

Like the blogger who's never tried a case?


9 people like this
Posted by member
a resident of Greenmeadow
on Nov 21, 2017 at 1:28 pm

When Judges making rulings they are suppose to use the law to support opinions. I find little except the use of speeches by this Judge. So your aware, I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, so I'm a little more objective. Any honest person can see this ruling will be reversed. The Judge didn't use the law, he used a speech. This Judge never should have been appointed, he makes the law up as he goes along. I guess the simple answer would be if your a Democrat you would love this judge, if you are not a Democrat he would rule against you even if you were right.


Like this comment
Posted by Novelera
a resident of Midtown
on Nov 21, 2017 at 3:19 pm

Novelera is a registered user.

@member. Your execrable English grammar gets in the way of your argument.


5 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 21, 2017 at 4:24 pm

38 year resident is a registered user.

@ Novelera.....I think you got the point "member" was trying to make. Not everyone has great grammar or uses big words like you (not impressed, but are just as passionate about the country as you may be. Give it a rest.


13 people like this
Posted by 38 year resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 21, 2017 at 4:36 pm

38 year resident is a registered user.

Is anyone surprised that the 9th Circuit Court would rule against an executive order issued by President Trump? "Victory for the American people?" Maybe for those who break the law by crossing our borders illegally, but not for the American people. Ask the family of Kate Steinle if they think it's a victory for the American people. Ask the families of others who met the same fate as Kate if they think this is a victory for the American people.

Should this get to the Supreme Court, it will lose and sanctuary cities will be out billions in government money. Follow federal law and the money is yours. We'll see.


12 people like this
Posted by Apples to oranges
a resident of Professorville
on Nov 21, 2017 at 5:29 pm

" Should this get to the Supreme Court, it will lose and sanctuary cities will be out billions in government money. "

Based on what? What cases have the cities lost?

" I find little except the use of speeches by this Judge. "

Look harder.

" I didn't vote for Trump or Clinton, so I'm a little more objective. "

Voting for a third party makes one more objective? How so? (Assuming you voted at all...)


8 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 21, 2017 at 5:48 pm

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." - Tenth Amendment, Bill of Rights, The Constitution of the United States.

IOW, Big Government (or Big President) cannot compel states or counties or cities or the people to do its work for it. Conservatives highly respect the Constitution; Trumpie racialists reflexively revile it and those who uphold it.


8 people like this
Posted by Curmudgeon
a resident of Downtown North
on Nov 21, 2017 at 6:03 pm

"Ask the family of Kate Steinle if they think it's a victory for the American people."

Hasn't that family suffered enough? Have you no shame? Never mind answering.

That shot is so ridiculously improbable, and so lacking in any conceivable motive, that no knowledgeable reasonable person could convict the defendant.

He would not even be on trial had he been a Caucasian citizen. In that case, you likely would not have even heard about the incident. Or, if you had, you'd have just shrugged, right?


20 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Old Palo Alto
on Nov 21, 2017 at 6:06 pm

All it would take is anyone of the above legal U.S. posters to work in Mexico for six months... You would change your mind on sanctuary cities.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

All your news. All in one place. Every day.

Why is it becoming increasingly impossible to open a restaurant on the Peninsula?
By Elena Kadvany | 27 comments | 5,099 views

Firing Judge Persky as a tennis coach was a big mistake
By Diana Diamond | 23 comments | 2,829 views

Electric Buses: A case study
By Sherry Listgarten | 3 comments | 2,185 views

It just takes time
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 562 views

Helping Partners Become Couples (vs. Helping Couples Become Partners)
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 463 views

 

PRICE INCREASES MONDAY

On Friday, October 11, join us at the Palo Alto Baylands for a 5K walk, 5K run, 10K run or half marathon! All proceeds benefit local nonprofits serving children and families.

Register now