opinion

Trump's executive order on Jackson, 'sanctuary cities' is miscarriage of justice

President Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions are back at it again. They are now threatening to take away federal funding from the city of Jackson. Why Jackson? Why Santa Clara, California, and a host of other cities in America?

First, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that all persons are protected by the laws of the United States. That includes immigrants, even those living in this country unlawfully. These persons have long been recognized as “persons” guaranteed due process by the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments.

Any legislation that imposes special disabilities upon groups disfavored by virtue of circumstances beyond their control — such as children of immigrants living here unlawfully — suggest a “class of caste” treatment that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to abolish. The Supreme Court said that more than 30 years ago.

Now, in 2017 and to fulfill campaign promises, Trump and Sessions are “tag teaming” across America to uproot every immigrant who may be living her unlawfully and their children and destroy every city that does not fully cooperate to root out these perceived “evildoers” along with any of their children that are in America through no fault of their own. How do Trump and Sessions do that?

The solution is to take the money away if cities such as Jackson do not fully cooperate, and this is not just limited to immigration laws but across the board. Cities on notice must comply with all federal laws or lose federal funding depended on by the cities.

The city of Jackson passed an ordinance in 2010 that prevents the making of inquiry as to a person’s immigration status. Section 86-194 specifically provides that no police officer shall solicit information concerning immigration status for purposes of compliance with federal immigration law or seek such information from a person seeking police services or a victim of a crime.

Now the White House is seeking not only to compel cooperation by the cities on disclosure on immigration status but to penalize cities for failing to do so. Trump is seeking to stop what he refers to as “sanctuary cities,” of which Jackson is not.

The administration relies on federal law, 8 U.S.C. Section 1373, that bars cities like Jackson from implementing policies that restrict the sending or receiving of “information regarding citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful of any individual.”

In the recent decision enjoining enforcement of Section 1373, the district judge in the City of Philadelphia v. Sessions held that this “statutory provision — by its plain terms — is in no way limited to aliens, criminal aliens, or even convicted criminals.”

The judge in the Nov. 20 decision in Pennsylvania held that “conditional funding for local law enforcement on the compliance, by Dr. Farley’s health workers toward their law-abiding patients, is the sort of overly 'attenuated or tangential relationship' that arguable exceeds the relatedness requirement of grant conditions under the Spending Clause.”

In Santa Clara v. Trump, the District Court in California, Judge William Orrick, issued another blow to Trump and his immigration ban, by ruling that the Section 1373 argument that “purports to ensure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with all applicable federal law do not receive federal funds; and to establish a procedure to make 'sanctuary jurisdictions' ineligible to receive federal grants."

These and other judges have continued to determine that the threats to lose federal funding by the executive branch is in direct violation of the U.S. Constitution.

The funds of the city of Jackson and other cited cities pertain to the Byrne Grant that they use for purposes pertaining to all of law enforcement and not just the prosecution of criminals. Byrne funds are not utilized by the city of Jackson for the implementation and enforcement of federal immigration laws.

The withdrawal of the Byrne funds is being used by the White House to force cities to cooperate with the federal government on the immigration crackdown. The use of Section 1373 is a broad stroke by the White House to attempt to satisfy Trump's base. The congressional intent behind Section 1373 is for better communication between government agencies and Immigration and Naturalization Services.

The rulings in Pennsylvania and California should provide guidance to the city of Jackson on how to protect the Byrne funds provided under the federal grant.

John Mooney is an attorney in Madison. Contact him at john@jmooneylaw.com.