Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(108,335 posts)
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:41 PM Apr 2017

No, Jeff Sessions, you cant just strip funding from sanctuary cities to hurt immigrants

The Justice Department threatened to cut off grant funding to eight cities on Friday — unless those cities provide more support to federal officials trying to crack down on undocumented immigrants. But DOJ’s threat is unconstitutional and is highly unlikely to survive a lawsuit.

In fact, the Justice Department’s threat against these eight cities appears to be so amateurish and so poorly aligned with longstanding Supreme Court precedent that it raises serious questions about whether the threat was properly vetted.

At issue is funding for so-called “sanctuary cities,” a term that’s often used for cities that choose not to cooperate with federal efforts to arrest immigrants.

Under the Supreme Court’s “anti-commandeering doctrine,” the feds cannot order a state or local government to participate in a federal program. Thus, while a state or municipality may voluntarily agree to have its police force participate in federal immigration enforcement, state and local governments also have an absolute right to refuse to do so.

However, the federal government is permitted to offer states or localities a financial incentive to participate in a federal program. So the feds can create a grant program, but only make the grant money available to states or cities that comply with certain conditions — which means Congress could hypothetically pass a law stating a city may only receive certain federal funds if it agrees to make its police force available for immigration enforcement.

But there are constitutional limits on the federal government’s ability to impose such conditions upon a federal grant program. Among other things, the Supreme Court explained in South Dakota v. Dole, “if Congress desires to condition the States’ receipt of federal funds, it ‘must do so unambiguously” in a way that enables “the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation.’”

https://thinkprogress.org/jeff-sessions-amateurish-unconstitutional-assault-on-immigrants-dd6ab8a1671e

10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
No, Jeff Sessions, you cant just strip funding from sanctuary cities to hurt immigrants (Original Post) Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin Apr 2017 OP
Very informative. I learned a lot from that. underpants Apr 2017 #1
I did too! NurseJackie Apr 2017 #4
Odd, JBS sure seemed to talk alot about jurisdiction whenever Feds try to enforce laws in 'Bama... haele Apr 2017 #2
San Francisco and Seattle are suing on this and should win Gothmog Apr 2017 #3
Oh really? Should win? Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #6
Read the think progress materials Gothmog Apr 2017 #9
When Gorsuch and team overturn Roe, will the law be clear there too or will they Eliot Rosewater Apr 2017 #10
"amateurish"... applies to everything the Trump Adm does. procon Apr 2017 #5
Hey, AG Sessions! gratuitous Apr 2017 #7
We are being led by the most incompetent group of buffoons in the world. Initech Apr 2017 #8

haele

(12,686 posts)
2. Odd, JBS sure seemed to talk alot about jurisdiction whenever Feds try to enforce laws in 'Bama...
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 01:48 PM
Apr 2017

But he can't even seem to spell it when he's the one trying to tell states what to do...
Jurisdiction. The local police have little to no jurisdiction when it comes to searching out and holding undocumented people for the Federal Government if theses people are not committing crimes in their areas. Not to mention the fact the Feds are not reimbursing local police for the time and recourses to do so.
So, JBS is telling local governments to put aside their own concerns and what works to keep crime down in their communities to step in line with the Federal Masters.
Jur-is-dict-tion. I'm sure he can say it.
Going after undocumented non-criminals is the job of the Border Patrol. Not the local police.

Haele

Eliot Rosewater

(31,131 posts)
6. Oh really? Should win?
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:03 PM
Apr 2017

This is based on what?

Is it based on the law and the case being heard by an honest judge?

Constitutional doctrine? Supreme Court decision?

Can you figure where I am going?

Just like the successful sexual harassment laws and suits brought to bring down O'Reilly, these laws and judges exist because liberals or democrats or honest republicans created the laws or made decisions in courts that upheld them.


Now, which party is currently packing the entire judicial system and government with sick, twisted, corrupt sycophants who dont give a shit about the law, democracy and least of all the constitution?

Sorry, you gave me an opening to rant on about why not voting or voting 3rd party is so god damn fucking stupid and dangerous.

Gothmog

(145,722 posts)
9. Read the think progress materials
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:59 PM
Apr 2017

The law is actually very clear here. Roberts opinion in the Affordable Care Act case on Medicaid expansion is great for the cities fighting turmp's sanctuary city fight.

Eliot Rosewater

(31,131 posts)
10. When Gorsuch and team overturn Roe, will the law be clear there too or will they
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 06:13 PM
Apr 2017

just ignore the law, precedent and the constitution to effect their desired outcome?



All of these 3 things are useless to us if sycophants are in charge.

procon

(15,805 posts)
5. "amateurish"... applies to everything the Trump Adm does.
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:01 PM
Apr 2017

Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III is just as incompetent as everyone else in Trump's clown car.

gratuitous

(82,849 posts)
7. Hey, AG Sessions!
Tue Apr 25, 2017, 02:04 PM
Apr 2017

You know, there are a lot of localities that are not complying with federal law as laid down in the Obergefell decision legalizing gay marriage. Do you want to cut off federal funding from those places, too? If not, why not?

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»No, Jeff Sessions, you ca...