Reuters: Sanctuary cities see legal holes in Trump’s immigration orders

January 26, 2017

By Mica Rosenberg, Dan Levine and Andy Sullivan

President Donald Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to take away funding from self-proclaimed sanctuary cities had one big exemption for one of his favorite constituencies: the police, who would be protected from cuts.

But Trump’s opponents say that very exemption makes it much more likely that a judge could strike down that section of the order as unconstitutional.

It is just one example of the legal arguments that cities, immigration groups and other opponents are readying as they prepare to fight an executive order signed by Trump on Wednesday that would cut federal aid to “sanctuary” jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Lawyers for the potential challengers pointed to court rulings that said the federal government can only withhold funds to local jurisdictions if the money is directly tied to the behavior it objects to.

The Trump administration cannot cut funds for sanctuary cities’ healthcare and education while preserving money for police, since those jobs relate more closely to immigration enforcement, said Richard Doyle, city attorney in San Jose, California. He said it was not clear whether existing federal funding or only future grants would be targeted.

Supporters of the new Republican president’s actions say that sanctuary cities ignore federal law and think the White House will be able to answer with a strong case in court.

Federal law allows Trump to restrict public assistance “of any kind where an illegal alien could possibly benefit,” said Dale Wilcox, executive director of the Washington-based conservative Immigration Reform Law Institute. … Read the full story by Mica Rosenberg, Dan Levine and Andy Sullivan.