On Tuesday, April 25, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick placed a preliminary injunction on President Trump’s executive order to stop federal funding to sanctuary cities and other areas that fail to follow through with the enforcement of federal immigration laws.
Orrick’s decision followed a hearing that took place on Monday, April 14, 2017, where the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara and San Francisco counties, California had brought suit, questioning the constitutionality of a portion of Pres. Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 executive order that federal funds be denied to “sanctuary cities” and other places that shield undocumented immigrants from deportation efforts being carried out by the federal government.
In addition to the executive order itself, Orrick cited public comments made by both President Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions for this conclusion that the executive order “appeared intended to sweep more broadly than allowed by federal law,” including the jurist’s concern that via the Constitution, Congress controls federal spending, meaning that the executive order signed by the president was placing conditions on a function of the legislative branch, something that is not an executive branch function.
Orrick explained in his written decision placing the preliminary injunction order against the withholding of federal funds as ordered by the president as while the courts determine the future of the edict: “If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments. The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds.” U.S
“If there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments. The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds.”
During their arguments, attorneys for the city of San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that the combined total of funding that would be potentially lost if President Trump’s executive order remains as it stands would be in excess of $2 billion.
Freelance writer of 15+ years who is passionate about writing. Liberal Arts and Social Sciences background. Avid reader.Thirty-plus years experience as a registered nurse. Have lived in various parts of the United States, including a recent seven-year stint in Oklahoma City and back home now in Ohio. Writes about U.S. News, Health and Politics for The Daily Voice News. Contact me at [email protected]