Your feedback ensures we stay focused on the facts that matter to you most—take our survey
You're Hired: Tracking the Trump Administration Transition - August 9, 2017
Trump Administration (first term)  Vice President Mike Pence Cabinet • White House staff • Transition team • Trump's second term |
Domestic affairs: Abortion • Crime and justice • Education • Energy and the environment • Federal courts • Firearms policy • First Amendment • Healthcare • Immigration • Infrastructure • LGBTQ issues • Marijuana • Puerto Rico • Social welfare programs • Veterans • Voting issues Economic affairs and regulations: Agriculture and food policy • Budget • Financial regulation • Jobs • Social Security • Taxes • Trade Foreign affairs and national security: Afghanistan • Arab states of the Persian Gulf • China • Cuba • Iran • Iran nuclear deal • Islamic State and terrorism • Israel and Palestine • Latin America • Military • NATO • North Korea • Puerto Rico • Russia • Syria • Syrian refugees • Technology, privacy, and cybersecurity |
| Polling indexes: Opinion polling during the Trump administration |
This is the August 9, 2017, edition of an email sent from November 2016 to September 2017 that covered Donald Trump's presidential transition, cabinet appointees, and the different policy positions of those individuals who may have had an effect on the new administration. Previous editions of "You're Hired" can be found here.
This week, the city of Chicago sued the Trump administration over a new rule from the Justice Department that limited funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. Today, we will look at the lawsuit as well as how the administration has approached cities and counties designating themselves as sanctuary jurisdictions.
What it means to be a sanctuary jurisdiction
In general, the term sanctuary jurisdiction refers to a city, county, or state that has enacted policies which limit the involvement of local officials in the enforcement of federal immigration law. While jurisdictions may self-identify or be described by others as a sanctuary jurisdiction, the specific policies that prompt the designation are disputed. Examples of sanctuary policies include restricting local law enforcement from arresting individuals who violate federal immigration law and prohibiting law enforcement inquiries into a person's immigration status.
A June 2017 study by Ballotpedia found that 32 of the largest 100 cities by population in the United States could be designated as sanctuary cities. This finding was based on which cities and counties decline detainer requests outside of capital offenses or otherwise provide public services without regard to immigration status.
Trump administration policies toward sanctuary jurisdictions
Trump as a candidate
During his presidential campaign, Trump consistently called for ending all federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions.
- In August 2015, Trump released his position statement about immigration policy, including his stance on sanctuary cities. His statement read, “Cut-off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement.”
- On August 31, 2016, Trump delivered a speech on immigration in which he said sanctuary policies were to blame for a number of crimes committed by those residing in the country without legal permission. He proposed to “block funding for sanctuary cities. We block the funding. No more funds. We will end the sanctuary cities that have resulted in so many needless deaths. Cities that refuse to cooperate with federal authorities will not receive taxpayer dollars, and we will work with Congress to pass legislation to protect those jurisdictions that do assist federal authorities.”
Executive order, January 2017
On January 25, Trump signed an executive order titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” The order partially dealt with his administration’s approach to sanctuary jurisdictions and specified that the attorney general and the secretary of homeland security should “ensure that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary. The Secretary has the authority to designate, in his discretion and to the extent consistent with law, a jurisdiction as a sanctuary jurisdiction. The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law.”
Department of Justice grant rules, July 2017
On July 25, 2017, the Department of Justice announced that jurisdictions wishing to receive funds from a specific grant aimed at community policing (called the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant) must comply with three new conditions:
1) the city must share any immigration status information collected by city agents with federal officials, 2) must honor requests by federal immigration officials to receive 48-hour notice prior to releasing certain detainees, and 3) must allow federal immigration officials access to local jails and prisons in order to interrogate prisoners.
In announcing the new requirements, Sessions stated that local jurisdictions needed to partner more closely with federal immigration authorities as part of the Justice Department’s strategies to reduce violent crime.
How sanctuary jurisdictions have responded
Santa Clara County, California, lawsuit, February 2017
On February 3, 2017, Santa Clara County, California, sued the Trump administration for its January executive order. The suit challenged the order's constitutionality in four distinct charges, claiming that the executive order:
- “[S]eizes for the President and the executive branch the power of the federal purse, which belongs exclusively to Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 1 of our federal Constitution.”
- “[I]s too vague to provide the County with reasonable notice of what it must do to comply with its terms and avoid unspecified 'enforcement actions.'”
- “[D]enies the County the procedural due process protections afforded to it by the Fifth Amendment.”
- “[V]iolates the Tenth Amendment and the federalism principles that animate our governmental structure.”
On April 25, 2017, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction blocking the portion of the executive order that cut funding to sanctuary cities. The judge's ruling read, in part, “The Constitution vests the spending power in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds.”
City of Chicago lawsuit, August 2017
On Monday, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel announced that the city of Chicago had filed a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions over the city’s status as a sanctuary city. At issue are the Justice Department’s new criteria imposed by the Trump administration on applications under the Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.
The city contends that the new criteria are unconstitutional. In filing for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of the new JAG criteria, the city argues that the government cannot deny JAG to the city as the grants are based on a statutory formula created by Congress, and that both the president and the Justice Department lack the constitutional authority to alter Congress’ requirements for awarding the grants. In its filing, the city petitioned the court to issue a ruling by the September 5, 2017, deadline to apply for the JAG program. Chicago expected to receive $3.2 million in JAGs this year to purchase new police vehicles and equipment.
How the lawsuits differ
The Santa Clara County lawsuit and preliminary injunction were aimed at Trump’s executive order, which issued broad statements about federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions. In his decision, Orrick noted that the scope of the order was broad enough to merit a preliminary injunction. He wrote: “The Order’s broad directive and unclear terms, and the President’s and Attorney General’s endorsement of them, has caused substantial confusion and justified fear among states and local jurisdictions that they will lose all federal grant funding at the very least.”
Chicago’s lawsuit deals with the narrower issue of blocking particular grant money to the city because of local policies that may be in conflict with the new federal rules for receiving grant money. According to NPR, at issue for Chicago is that the Justice Department’s new rules require a local jurisdiction to hold those who are arrested and are residing in the country without legal permission for 48 hours until Immigrations and Customs Enforcement can pick them up and begin deportation proceedings. Chicago Police Chief Eddie Johnson told NPR on Monday, “We are charged with investigating the incident that caused us to have a reason to have this individual. So we investigate that. In the course of that investigation, we don't normally ask people their immigration status. Now, if it did come up for some reason, we cannot hold people past the 48-hour mark that is lawfully enacted for us to hold them to. So if we don't do anything in that 48 hours, then we have to let them go. And I'm just not going to put [police officers] in a situation where they can be sued for holding these individuals. And that's a lawsuit that we cannot win, so I won't do that.”
See also
- You're Hired: Tracking the Trump Administration Transition
- Donald Trump presidential transition team
| |||||||||||||||||||
