Here We Go Again, Judge

So, another day, another judge, and another roadblock for the administration. Bob Hoge has covered this here. I would like to comment.

At some point, the Supreme Court needs to review this general trend and see if these lower court judges are exercising constitutional authority when they stand in the way of the executive branch. If not, then the DOJ needs to start filing charges like Obstruction of Justice. If they are, then get ready because this is going to turn into your real-life constitutional crisis that the Democrats are always wailing about. If a district court judge can stop a president from creating domestic policies, then eventually they can manipulate his hand on foreign ones. Some on here will say that this is already happening with deportees.

As far as this one goes, however, there are some problems for the sanctuary cities people. Judge Orrick took a rather blasé stance when he said, "Here we go again" about Trump's policy of cutting off cities that took federal (our) money away from them when they broke federal law by impeding ICE. He cited his ruling about the same thing when Trump tried to do it in 2017 and sort of stood there shaking his head, crossing his arms, and acting like a father correcting his errant son. Again.

It's settled science. I have spoken. Why must I admonish you again?

When Orrick blocked Trump in '17, the administration appealed the decision but lost. However, in 2020, a different appellate court (2nd Circuit) ruled that Trump could indeed withhold funds in such cases. But it appears that Orrick is just living in his own fiefdom and ignoring the findings of a higher appellate court. Five years ago....maybe everybody forgot already.

Now, taking away federal money from a city or state because of non-compliance with the law should be common sense. You don't wanna play ball, you don't get the ball. You aid and abet illegal immigration and block the federal government from enforcing the law in your state, you don't get federal cash. Now I am not aware, in the first place, that cities or states even have a right to federal cash, but if you're an entitled San Franciscan politician-judge you certainly believe that you do.

So, to clear-thinking Americans, this would seem to be puzzling. Next, the idea of sanctuary cities would also seem to be puzzling. You mean these municipalities — or even states — can select which federal laws they want to follow and which ones they don't? If that's true, and it appears it is from precedents set, then federal law seems to be optional as long as you wave a wand and declare yourself a sanctuary from it. Can Tulsa declare itself a Tax Sanctuary City? Can Dallas declare itself free from meddling by the FBI because it bestows upon itself a Sanctuary From Federal Law Enforcement because it prefers its own Texas Rangers?

I'm sure there's plenty of legal gobbledygook that prohibits that, but I'm not sure why the same gobbledygook doesn't cover cities and states that want to blow off the crime of harboring people who broke into the country. I don't think that most people can square that circle.

Now it's interesting, and maybe Orrick is hoping nobody will learn this, but Title 23 U.S.C. § 158 established that the federal government could lawfully withhold highway funds from states that did not comply with a uniform minimum age for alcohol consumption that was set by the feds at age 21. This came about in an effort to combat drunk driving and was enacted by Congress in 1984 as a way of ensuring compliance. It is a federal statute. Title 23, Section 158 says:

The Secretary shall withhold 10 per centum of the amount required to be apportioned to any State under each of sections 104(b)(1), 104(b)(3), and 104(b)(4) [1] of this title on the first day of each fiscal year after the second fiscal year beginning after September 30, 1985, in which the purchase or public possession in such State of any alcoholic beverage by a person who is less than twenty-one years of age is lawful.

At least one state did not comply and took the matter to the Supreme Court in 1987 with South Dakota v. Dole. South Dakota lost, and the SCOTUS ruling is encapsulated here:

The state of South Dakota had a long-standing law that set the drinking age at 19 for consumption of beer that contained up to 3.2% alcohol. This law was undermined by the National Minimum Drinking Age Act, passed by the federal government in 1984. Congress required states to set the minimum drinking age at 21, or lose 10% of federal funding for their highways. South Dakota brought a constitutional challenge to the Act against Secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole...

and

Held: Even if Congress, in view of the Twenty-first Amendment, might lack the power to impose directly a national minimum drinking age (a question not decided here), § 158's indirect encouragement of state action to obtain uniformity in the States' drinking ages is a valid use of the spending power.
(a) Incident to the spending power, Congress may attach conditions on the receipt of federal funds. However, exercise of the power is subject to certain restrictions, including that it must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." Section 158 is consistent with such restriction,

So there is a precedent for withholding funds to states or municipalities that do not conform to federal law, and it was codified and affirmed over 35 years ago by the Supreme Court, but Judge Orrick knows better because he lives in San Francisco, so, *sigh*. Here we go again.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left's lies, new legislation wasn't needed to secure our border, just a new president.

Help us continue to report the truth about the president's border policies and mass deportations. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.

Editor's Note: Partisan federal judges are hijacking President Trump's agenda and insulting the will of the people

Help us expose out-of-control judges dead set on halting President Trump's mandate for change. Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.