The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument today in the cases of San Francisco v. Trump and Santa Clara v. Trump involving section 9(a) of Executive Order 13,768 which addresses eligibility for federal grants of jurisdictions that refuse to comply with a federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373. CJLF's amicus brief is here. Maura Dolan has this story for the L.A. Times.
The court has the video here. USCA9 does have one of the best-run administrations of any court I practice in. Many courts stream argument video live and post it on the site eventually, but not many get the archive video up the same day.
From the L.A. Times:
The court has the video here. USCA9 does have one of the best-run administrations of any court I practice in. Many courts stream argument video live and post it on the site eventually, but not many get the archive video up the same day.
From the L.A. Times:
"The point of this order is to use federal dollars as a weapon to defund sanctuary cities that don't comply with the policy the president prefers," said Deputy San Francisco City Atty. Christine Van Aken."The policy the president prefers" in this case is an Act of Congress that was enacted over 20 years ago and signed by President Clinton. It's one of those pesky laws that the President "shall take Care ... be faithfully executed." See U.S. Const. art. II § 3.
"Sanctuary cities" is a bit of a misnomer is several ways. The main bone of contention involves inmates in local jails, and jails in California are mostly run by counties rather than cities. Originally, suits were filed by Santa Clara, Richmond, and San Francisco. Santa Clara is a county. Richmond is a city. San Francisco is both, the only consolidated "city and county" in California. Only the Santa Clara and San Francisco suits went forward.
Leave a comment