Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
New York: ‘Gimme Shelter’; 2nd Circuit: ‘No Satisfaction’
President Trump, the rule of law, the Constitution of the United States, and the American people won again. The Second Circuit smacked down New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Virginia, Washington, and Rhode Island, along with a leftist judge. The case was New York et al. v. United States Dep’t of Justice et al.
The White House Press Secretary was right on top of this, quickly publishing a brief thank-you notice, the shorter version of which is “Nice court, good judges!”
Statement from the Press Secretary
IMMIGRATION | Issued on: February 26, 2020
Sanctuary jurisdictions deliberately imperil the safety of the American people by releasing criminal aliens onto city streets – instead of handing them over to Federal authorities. Since taking office, President Trump has made clear that his Administration would not allow these lawless jurisdictions to heartlessly inflict pain and suffering onto our communities. Today’s unanimous decision by the Second Circuit upholds the Department of Justice’s lawful authority to require jurisdictions that receive Federal grant money under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program to obey the law and not impede the removal of criminal aliens. We are pleased by the Court’s decision and remain committed to ensuring that no jurisdiction has license to nullify Federal law or deprive American Citizens of their fundamental rights.
The district court tried to get the Second Circuit to buy the Seventh Circuit’s support for sanctuary cities in a possibly similar case, but the majority was having none of it. This sets up a “split” between two circuits so the Supremes can listen to the arguments and make their own pronunciation on the matter.
Here is the summary and the passage where a three-judge panel of the Second Circuit declined to adopt the Seventh Circuit’s position [emphasis added]:
On appeal from a judgment entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge), which (1) mandates that defendants release withheld 2017 Byrne Program Criminal Justice Assistance funds to plaintiffs, and (2) enjoins defendants from imposing certain immigration‐related conditions on such grants, defendants argue that the district court erred in holding that the challenged conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act and the United States Constitution. REVERSED AND REMANDED. __________
[…]
INTRODUCTION
The principal legal question presented in this appeal is whether the federal government may deny grants of money to State and local governments that would be eligible for such awards but for their refusal to comply with three immigration‐related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States. Those conditions require grant applicants to certify that they will (1) comply with federal law prohibiting any restrictions on the communication of citizenship and alien status information with federal immigration authorities, see 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) provide federal authorities, upon request, with the release dates of incarcerated illegal aliens; and (3) afford federal immigration officers access to incarcerated illegal aliens.
The case implicates several of the most divisive issues confronting our country and, consequently, filling daily news headlines: national immigration policy, the enforcement of immigration laws, the status of illegal aliens in this country, and the ability of States and localities to adopt policies on such matters contrary to, or at odds with, those of the federal government.
Intertwined with these issues is a foundational legal question: how, if at all, should federal, State, and local governments coordinate in carrying out the nation’s immigration policy? There is also a corollary question: to what extent may States and localities seeking federal grant money to facilitate the enforcement of their own laws adopt policies to extricate themselves from, hinder, or even frustrate the enforcement of federal immigration laws?
At its core, this appeal presents questions of statutory construction. In proceedings below, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Edgardo Ramos, Judge) determined that the Attorney General was not statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions and, therefore, enjoined their application. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D.N.Y. 2018). The thoughtful opinion of the district court requires us to examine the authorization question in detail. For reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorizes the Attorney General to impose the challenged conditions.
In concluding otherwise, the district court relied on, among other things, an opinion of the Seventh Circuit in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018). While mindful of the respect owed to our sister circuits, we cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.
Nor can we agree with the district court that the challenged conditions impermissibly intrude on powers reserved to the States. See U.S. CONST. Amend. X. As the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, in the realm of immigration policy, it is the federal government that maintains “broad,” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394 (2012), and “preeminent,” power, Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 10 (1982), which is codified in an “extensive and complex” statutory scheme, Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 395. Thus, at the same time that the Supreme Court has acknowledged States’ “understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,” it has made clear that a “State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” Id. at 416. As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote over 200 years ago, “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 436 (1819). This fundamental principle, a bedrock of our federalism, is no less applicable today. Indeed, it pertains with particular force when, as here, Congress acts pursuant to its power under the Spending Clause. See U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8.
The Seventh Circuit three-judge panel was firmly in the grip of Trump Derangement Syndrome, and cast the issue as the president usurping congressional power, in the face of Congress not acting [to support enforcement of their own laws]. See City of Chicago v. Sessions.
The Second Circuit used very polite words to brush this nonsense off and apply relevant Supreme Court precedent. Arizona v. United States came back to bite the left. As the Second Circuit case reversed the district judge’s injunction, the case is remanded to be decided on the merits, following the guidance given by the higher court, which is very unwelcome to the district judge.
In the meantime, the administration gets to implement its policy in the Second Circuit area: New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. New York and New York City are the big fish here and will cause particular sound and fury as the relatively modest funds are taken away from their trough.
This is a big relief, but what does it mean?
If I again this summer hear of young American citizens being turned away from summer jobs at the pear packing plant, can they have legal relief for the discrimination imposed against them due to their being the wrong race. (In other posts, I have harped on how college aged young people, as well as about to retire, but in good health older people, are told by the white managerial crowd “We can’t hire you for seasonal work, as that would upset our hispanic foreman who wants only Spanish speaking people here on the job.)
In Calif, mentioning anything that jeopardizes any aspect of the “hispanics uber alles” sanctity offered only for people of that race is dangerous. The local DA adheres to the above formula. In fact, I suspect that if anyone who is injured by not being hired then attempted to do something about it legally, they might be charged with being a full out hater guilty of a hate crime. To avoid being a “hater” a person has to avoid even considering that they deserve equal treatment with newly arrived immigrants, as after all, shouldn’t white citizens be willing to suffer a bit to make up for their awesome white privileges?
I do not see any connection with the original post. What the decision means is that New York, Connecticut, and Vermont must choose between cooperating with ICE or forfeiting one specific federal grant, at least until the district court rules on the facts of the case and the Second Circuit gets that decision for appellate review on the facts and the law.
It is abundantly clear that the left intends to dismantle immigration law and ultimately force an unwilling majority of American citizens to accept open borders and instant voter registration for foreign welfare seekers. The alleged “compassion” of The Wise Latina notwithstanding this is a sustained hate crime against American values, governance, and culture.
It is also why the re-election of Donald Trump and a GOP Senate is so critical. Four more years of Donald and Mitch installing judges will provide far more lasting protection than building a physical wall.
NeverTrumpers who think that the defeat of Trump will result in some corrective on conservative politics and an elevation in tone (i.e., so that once again only left-wingers can be ad hominen and overtly partisan) are establishing a price for their fantasy outcome that is unacceptable–a hard left federal judiciary that will shred the rule of law until this supposed restoration of polite conservatism can arrive just in time to lose all future elections and smile politely while the Constitution goes into the crapper.
Clifford, great post.
Note that the 3rd and 9th Circuits had also previously ruled against the Trump administration on this issue.
The 7th Circuit case that you cited upheld a nationwide injunction, though the nationwide injunction was reversed by the 7th Circuit en banc. I presume that the en banc decision left the injunction in place throughout the 7th Circuit.
It will be a landmark ruling by SCOTUS to determine whether “Orange Man Bad” can be found among the penumbras and emanations visible only to enlightened jurists such that the powers and authority expressly granted to POTUS by Article II and federal statutes exist except when Trump uses them.
Yes, and Chief Justice Roberts proved himself a Bush the Second judge as he sided with the left wing of the Supreme Court in allowing the 9th Circuit’s false assertion of nation-wide injunction authority to stay in place. Bonus: the 9th Circuit opinion was written by a, wait for it, George W. Bush judge. I know, I too am shocked, shocked that judges are political.
Yes the “tone over substance” zeitgeist in America is now full steam ahead.
Perhaps it is my Chicago background, but I learned decades ago that the gently smiling, very polite gentleman might stab me in the back once the contract was signed. And definitely would not be stopping to help me should my car break down. (Not even to use their very expensive car cell phone to call for help on my behalf.)
It was often the guy whose jokes might have been a tad too colorful who would explain the contract and then also stop to help.
I am still hearing from “progressives” that the Trump economy has not trickled down to the average person. Yesterday I visited Santa Rosa Calif for the first time in three years. I was amazed at the quality of homeless people. A young woman, nicely shampooed hair, clean clothes, sleeping under the freeway underpass. (I suspect some mental condition put her there – Tourrete’s or some other problem.) But as I drove home, I reflected on how it is probably Calif policies rather than Trump’s that have assisted in this young woman being on the streets. Sonoma and Marin counties have plenty of low cost housing units – but those units are filled to the brim by immigrants from other nations.
That’s disappointing, though Alito — also a W. appointee — would have granted the relief. We should make it clear that the 9th Circuit opinion that you’ve referenced in this comment related to a different issue than the OP (though it was also immigration-related).
Roberts has joined the other 4 in several other injunction smack-downs recently, so it’s not fair to say that he’s entirely on the other side on this issue.
All fair points. Of course, Alito was forced on Bush after his preferred nominee, Harriet Miers, went down in flames under criticism by conservative Senators and pundits, including talk radio.
The worry about Roberts is not that he takes the side of an issue, but that he takes the side of his peer group. It’s probably not as simple as that, of course.