Trump Can't Punish Chicago, Other 'Sanctuary Cities' By Cutting Federal Funds: Judge

SAN FRANCISCO, CA — A federal judge in San Francisco has ruled that President Donald Trump cannot punish so-called "sanctuary cities" by withholding federal funding in a way that violates the constitution.

Trump issued an executive order shortly after taking office that directed the Department of Justice and Homeland Security that cities and jurisdictions that don't comply with federal immigration laws are "not eligible to receive federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary."

SIGN UP: Get Patch real-time email alerts for the latest news for Chicago — or your neighborhood. And iPhone users: Check out Patch's new app.

Santa Clara County and the City of San Francisco had challenged this particular provision of the order. The ruling by U.S. District Judge William Orrick III also gives cover to Chicago, which was declared a "sanctuary city" in 1985. As a sanctuary city, Chicago has designated itself as a safe haven for undocumented immigrants by establishing policies that don't require local agencies to go after residents based on their status as U.S. citizens.

Mayor Rahm Emanuel has been steadfast in keeping Chicago a sanctuary city status, doubling down on the municipal status after Trump was elected and in the face of the president's crackdown that could have cost the city federal funding. He viewed Tuesday's ruling as a win for the city and immigrants.

RELATED: Chicago Will Stay A 'Sanctuary City' For Undocumented Immigrants; Will Trump Cut Federal Funds? (Video)

“The Trump administration’s attempt to coerce cities to choose between our most basic values and federal funding was not only bad public policy, we now have further proof that it was unconstitutional," Emanuel said in a statement released after the decision. "The City of Chicago was proud to sign on to an amicus brief in support of an immediate injunction, and I commend Judge Orrick’s thoughtful decision to block enforcement of this illegal executive order. Throughout our history immigrants, refugees and dreamers from around the world have moved our country and our city forward, and we will not sit idly by while President Trump threatens American cities because he doesn't share our values.”

Orrick wrote that the injunction does nothing more than "implement the effect of the Government's flawed interpretation of the Order." The injunction does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Homeland Security Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants and neither does it impact the secretary's ability to develop regulations or guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such."

"It does prohibit the Government from exercising Section 9(a) in a way that violates the Constitution," Orrick wrote.

RELATED: Trump Cracks Down On 'Sanctuary Cities' Like Chicago

Section 9(a) of the order also stated that "the Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction."

Orrick wrote that based on the arguments made by the government that the order is "an exercise of the president's "bully pulpit" to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement," Section 9(a) only applies to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with federal immigration law.

However, Orrick wrote that by its plain language, the section attempts to reach all federal grants and not merely the three mentioned at the hearing. Any doubt about the scope of the order, Orrick wrote, had been erased by public comments made by the president and the attorney general. He pointed to Trump calling the order a "weapon" and Attorney General Jeff Sessions saying jurisdictions that are not in compliance would suffer “withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants,” and the “claw back” of any funds previously awarded.

Constitutionally, the order cannot place new conditions on federal funds, Orrick wrote. He also ruled that 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 counties met the burden of showing that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm without an injunction, Orrick wrote.

Read the full order below:

By FEROZE DHANOA | Patch National Staff

Patch Editor Joe Vince contributed to this report.

Protesters against Miami-Dade Mayor Carlos Gimenez's decision to abide by President Donald Trump's order, that any 'sanctuary' cities could possibly lose federal funding, make themselves heard. (photo by Joe Raedle | Getty Images News | Getty Images)

Like What You're Reading? Stay Patched In!

• Like our Crime page on Facebook
• Check out the Events Calendar for what’s going on