The Supreme Court Already Upheld Defunding Sanctuary Cities

Posted on in Politics, Trump

Earlier this week a federal judge in California blocked Trump’s plan to deny funding to sanctuary cities. According to this so called judge, the federal government does not have the constitutional power to withhold funding. Not only is this a ridiculous holding without any legal basis, it runs contrary to a firmly held Supreme Court decision issued in 1987.

I addressed this issue live on Wensday’s show

and again yesterday

In south Dakota v. Dole, the supreme court reviewed whether the federal government could refuse highway funding to states that established a drinking age less than 21. The states argued that the 21st amendment granted states the power to determine the drinking age. They were right. Yet the court upheld the refusal of funding.

The court stated the federal government can place conditions on funding so long as four factors are met. These are

  1. The government places clear conditions on the receipt of federal funds
  2. Such conditions are within the public interest
  3. Such conditions enhance the general welfare
  4. The conditions do not force states to violate the constitution

    Democrats constantly tell us to ignore the Constitution and instead determine unquestionably upon what the Supreme Court says the Constitution says. So, let’s analyze these four factors which the court says are crucial for determining whether the government can deny funding.

    1. Did Trump make a clear demand that localities report the presence of illegals? Yes.
    2. Is it in the public’s interest to have local authorities enforce federal law? Yes.
    3. Is it in the general welfare for federal authorities to be informed when illegals have been arrested? Yes.
    4. Is it unconstitutional to force states to report illegals aka when people violate federal law? No.

    Therefore, all four factors identified by the US supreme court have been met when it comes to President Trump’s proposal to deny funding to sanctuary cities. Thus, President Trump’s executive order is entirely constitutional.

    Perhaps judge orrick fell asleep during his constitutional law class. Perhaps he has an incompetent law clerk who doesn’t know how to conduct legal research. Or, perhaps the judge allowed his political bias and hatred of our President to influence his view. Whatever the reason, judge orrick’s decision is contrary to a former supreme court decision addressing the same issue. Keep in mind, judge orrick is required by law to follow former decisions issued by the US Supreme Court. This is called precedent and judges have been removed from office for failing to do so.

    According to our media, the simple act of asking questions about a federal judge’s ruling undermines the legitimacy of our nation’s court system. But, how does a judge who violates the law by refusing to follow supreme court precedent effect the legitimacy of our court system? To take a commonly heard mantra from the left’s when it comes to Trump and Russia, Perhaps the fact that the left is overly concerned about us asking questions about federal court decisions, shows they have something to hide.