老澳门开奖结果

For months, the Trump administration has tried to bully local communities into signing up to become extensions of the federal deportation system. That campaign of and public shaming based on 鈥� which has been mostly unsuccessful 鈥� suffered another major blow yesterday. A federal court in San Francisco ruled in two cases that the president鈥檚 threats were unconstitutional, and stopped the government from carrying them out anywhere in the country. The ruling vindicates the constitutional rights of cities, counties, and states to refuse to participate in deportations. And like the court orders halting the president鈥檚 Muslim ban, the ruling shows the crucial role that courts play in preventing presidential overreach.

The cases involve 鈥渟anctuary cities,鈥� a term that generally refers to cities (or counties or states) that choose to disentangle themselves from the federal immigration enforcement system. These local governments have decided that drawing a clear line between local government and Immigration and Customs Enforcement encourages greater trust in the community, ensuring that residents feel safe reporting crimes and seeking services. That trust is particularly crucial for vulnerable populations, such as survivors of sexual assault, trafficking, and domestic violence. For local jurisdictions, participating in the deportation process, by contrast, imposes serious , including the prospect of expensive and .

In response, the president has repeatedly threatened to punish localities that decline to join his proposed . Just days after being sworn in, he sought to make good on those threats, signing an threatening to defund jurisdictions that do not agree to participate in immigration enforcement. San Francisco and Santa Clara County, with support from the and others, sued. As they explained in , their sanctuary policies placed them squarely in the administration鈥檚 crosshairs. The threats to strip them of federal funding were having devastating effects on their budgeting processes, and, they argued, violated the Constitution.

The court . It refused to accept the government鈥檚 assurances that it would take only a few grants from sanctuary cities, explaining that the government鈥檚 narrow interpretation rendered the executive order an 鈥渙minous, misleading, and ultimately toothless threat,鈥� inconsistent with the order鈥檚 text and the administration鈥檚 public statements.

The court then explained that the executive order was unconstitutional in a number of ways. First, it ruled that the executive order violates the Constitution鈥檚 separation of powers: Congress, not the president, holds the authority to appropriate money and to establish conditions on spending. The president鈥檚 attempt to 鈥減lace new conditions on federal funds鈥� was therefore 鈥渁n improper attempt to wield Congress鈥檚 exclusive spending power.鈥�

Second, the court explained that even Congress could not have taken the steps the order envisioned 鈥� and therefore the president couldn鈥檛 either. Congress鈥檚 power to spend money is subject to important limitations. When Congress wants to impose a condition on a funding grant, it has to do so clearly and in advance; yet the executive order threatened funds that had never been clearly tied to immigration enforcement. Congress can only impose conditions that are 鈥渞easonably related鈥� to the funding at stake; but the executive order threatened to deny all kinds of funds, including many with absolutely no connection to immigration enforcement. And Congress cannot threaten to cut off spending programs as leverage to compel local governments to do its bidding; the executive order seeks to do just that. Indeed, the president called his defunding proposals a 鈥溾�� to be used against sanctuary cities.

Third, the court concluded that the order鈥檚 threats were so open-ended that they violate the requirements of due process. The order provides 鈥渘o clear guidance on how to comply with its provisions or what penalties will result from non-compliance,鈥� leaving it unconstitutionally vague. It also 鈥減rovides no process at all鈥� to sanctuary cities, which violates the Constitution鈥檚 requirements of notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The principles underlying the court鈥檚 decision are constitutional bedrock. The Constitution divides power between the federal government and the states, and among the three branches of the federal government, to ensure that no single person or government will ever have the power to eliminate the rights and freedoms we all cherish. Those values were vindicated by the ruling yesterday. Today, cities, counties, states, and individuals around the country are breathing a sigh of relief that those principles and our courts remain steadfast.