Daily Brew: Will Oregonians vote to end their state’s sanctuary state status?

July 23, 2018

Plus:  Appeals court finds the FHFA structure unconstitutional + 23 circuit court judges have been confirmed under Trump   Welcome to the Monday, July 23 Brew. Here’s what’s in store for you as you start your day: Ballot measure certification: Initiative to repeal Oregon's sanctuary state law certified for November Appeals court finds the Federal Housing Finance Agency structure unconstitutional 23 circuit court judges have been confirmed under Trump; average is 16.6 in the first two years of five prior administrations Initiative to repeal Oregon's sanctuary state law certified for the ballot The Oregon Repeal Sanctuary State Law Initiative qualified for the state's November ballot. If approved, the initiative would repeal the state’s sanctuary state law which limits the cooperation of local law enforcement with federal immigration enforcement. A June 2017 study by Ballotpedia found that 32 of the largest 100 cities by population in the United States fit Ballotpedia's definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction. Sanctuary states, as of May 2018, are California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont The elections division of the Oregon Secretary of State's office Tweeted that the measure qualified for the ballot with a signature validity rate of 95.2 percent.  Three Republican members of the Oregon House of Representatives, Sal Esquivel (R-6), Mike Nearman (R-23), and Greg Barreto (R-58), filed the proposal with the secretary of state's office on April 25, 2017.  According to the most recent reports available on July 18, 2018, one committee was registered to support this initiative: the Repeal Oregon Sanctuary Law Committee. The committee reported a total of $336,581.88 in contributions— $58,271.53 in cash donations and $278,310.35 in in-kind services. Ballotpedia had not identified any committees registered to oppose the measure. Learn more         Federal appeals court finds Federal Housing Finance Agency structure unconstitutional The structure of the Federal Housing Finance Agency was ruled unconstitutional because it is led by a single director who is only removable by the president for cause. The panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, consisting of Chief Judge Carl Stewart and Judges Catharina Haynes and Don Willett, held in Collins v. Mnuchin that the structure violates the separation of powers because the agency director is too insulated from presidential control. The FHFA was created by the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA) to oversee the government-sponsored mortgage security corporations Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In Collins v. Mnuchin, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders presented the following complaints: A 2012 dividend agreement between the FHFA and the U.S. Department of the Treasury, which rendered their shares valueless, exceeded the statutory authority of the FHFA and the Treasury Department. The FHFA is unconstitutionally structured because it is headed by a single director who is only removable for cause and it does not depend on congressional appropriations. A district court dismissed the shareholders’ complaints. In a split per curiam decision, however, the Fifth Circuit panel reversed the decision. The court struck the language from HERA that only allowed the president to dismiss the FHFA director for good cause. Though the panel found the FHFA structure unconstitutional, they upheld the statutory authority of FHFA and Treasury Department to enter into the dividend agreement. Brian Barnes, the attorney for the shareholders, stated that he expects that the FHFA will either request that the Fifth Circuit rehear the case or appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. The FHFA and the Treasury Department have not commented on the case. In June, a federal judge ruled that the structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), which is also headed by a single director who can only be removed for cause, was unconstitutional. Learn more→ 23 circuit court judges have been confirmed under Trump, higher than rate from the past five administrations Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced the withdrawal of the nomination of Ryan Bounds to the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on July 19, 2018.   Bounds is the first federal judge nominated by Trump to be withdrawn after the committee stage of the process. Since his inauguration, President Trump has nominated 35 judges to the circuit court posts. Of those 35 judges, 23 judges have been confirmed. The remaining nominees are awaiting confirmation.   An average of 16.6 circuit court judges were confirmed by the end of the second year in office for the past five presidents. The number of confirmed circuit court judges at the end of the second year in office of the past five presidents: Barack Obama: 16; George W. Bush: 17; Bill Clinton: 19; Ronald Reagan: 19; Jimmy Carter: 12. The United States courts of appeals (or circuit courts) are the intermediate appellate courts of the United States federal courts. There are 13 circuit courts with 179 authorized judgeships. Each circuit court decides appeals from any of the district courts—general trial courts on the federal level—that are in its federal judicial circuit. There are 94 federal district courts with 677 authorized judgeships. Learn more→