'Victory for the American people': S.F. attorney lauds blocking of Trump sanctuary cities order

John Bacon | USA TODAY

Show Caption Hide Caption Main punishment For 'sanctuary cities' ruled unconstitutional A federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from taking grant money from so-called sanctuary cities. Video provided by Newsy

A federal judge's decision to permanently block President Trump's executive order cracking down on cities that limit cooperation with immigration agencies is "a victory for the American people and the rule of law," San Francisco's city attorney says.

City Attorney Dennis Herrera filed suit in January challenging Trump's order to strip federal funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions" that do not comply with Immigration and Customs Enforcement requests aimed at deporting undocumented immigrants.

Santa Clara County and other local governments soon filed similar suits. At stake, they said, was hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for programs ranging from basic, day-to-day operations to long-term infrastructure projects such as road construction and public transportation.

Late Monday, federal Judge William Orrick ruled the executive order was too broad and encroached on congressional spending authority.

"The counties have demonstrated that the executive order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries," Orrick wrote, essentially affirming an earlier ruling.

The ruling drew a rebuke from Justice Department spokesman Devin O'Malley, who accused Orrick of exceeding his authority. The legal wrangling, however, is far from over.

"The Justice Department will vindicate the president's lawful authority to direct the executive branch," O'Malley said in a statement.

What exactly is a sanctuary city? Many cities across the U.S. identify as sanctuary cities, despite President Trump's threat to withhold federal funds. Here's a closer look at what that label means.

Herrera stressed that San Francisco follows federal immigration law and does not harbor criminals. He said the federal government remains free to enforce immigration law in San Francisco. But he said teachers, doctors and police officers can't be "conscripted" to become immigration officers.

"We live in a democracy," he said. "No one is above the law, including the president. President Trump might be able to tweet whatever comes to mind, but he can’t grant himself new authority because he feels like it."

Herrera said San Francisco had about $2 billion at stake, including $1.2 billion in annual operating funds and another $800 million in multi-year federal grants.

The Justice Department had downplayed the impact, saying the executive order applied only to a limited number of federal grants. San Francisco, for instance, would have lost very little if any money at all, the department suggested.

Orrick, however, found that argument "implausible" and the reach of the executive order sweeping. He said Attorney General Jeff Sessions had warned that jurisdictions would suffer “withholding grants, termination of grants and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants."

Orrick also noted that Trump had referred to the order as a "weapon" to use against jurisdictions balking at his immigration policies.

"In the February 5, 2017 interview," Orrick wrote. "President Trump specifically threatened to defund California, stating: 'I’m very much opposed to sanctuary cities. They breed crime. There’s a lot of problems. If we have to we’ll defund, we give tremendous amounts of money to California ... California in many ways is out of control.'”