25 Apr 2017 11:37 pm
LOL, the Trump administration lawyers argued that the EO was essentially a bluff, and just an exercise of the President's "bully pulpit."Judge Blocks Trump's `Sanctuary City' Order -- Even If It Is A`Toothless Threat'
A federal judge in California issued a nationwide injunction against President Trump's executive order threatening `sanctuary cities' with the loss of federal grants, even as he acknowledged both the government and its opponents agree the order can't be applied to the bulk of federal funding.
In an impassioned, 49-page ruling, U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick said the order, if read broadly, threatened billions of dollars in federal aid flowing to San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties in California and would cause immediate harm if allowed to remain in place.
He rejected arguments by Trump administration lawyers in court that the order issued Jan. 25 was essentially a bluff, an exercise of the President's "bully pulpit" to announce changes in federal immigration policy.
“It is heartening that the Government’s lawyers recognize that the Order cannot do more constitutionally than enforce existing law,” wrote Judge Orrick, an Obama appointee.
But in public comments Trump called it a “weapon” against cities that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration officials and other Trump administration officials warned the order would be used to cut federal funding.
The EO threatened to cut funds from 'sanctuary cities' but it contained no definition of the term 'sanctuary cities' as the Trump administration has yet to clarify what exactly it considers a 'sanctuary city' to be.
Justice Department lawyers argued in papers filed last month, that the order need not be applied as broadly as its literal language might permit, since the secretary of Homeland Security has not yet designated any city a “sanctuary jurisdiction."
Like most of his EO's, not worth the paper it was printed on.