Q&A of the Day – Can President Trump Withhold Funds from Sanctuary Cities?
Each day I feature a listener question sent by one of these methods.
Email: brianmudd@iheartmedia.com
Social: @brianmuddradio
iHeartRadio: Use the Talkback feature – the microphone button on our station’s page in the iHeart app.
Today’s Entry: Submitted via Talkback asking about whether the Trump administration can lawfully withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities.
Bottom Line: The answer is yes, and this could be a key tool used by the Trump administration on multiple fronts. You might recall that one of the earliest legal battles of the first Trump administration ensued from President Trump’s executive order withholding federal funds from sanctuary states and cities. The executive order signed January 25th, of 2017 – just five days into his presidency, stated: Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States. These jurisdictions have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic. The executive order then tasked federal agencies with withholding federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. Predictably the order set off a media firestorm and was met with immediate backlash from sanctuary jurisdictions that would be impacted with lawsuits attempting to prevent the order from taking effect.
Given the slow wheels of the justice system there wasn’t a legal resolution to Trump’s order under February 26th, 2020 – over three years from the date the order was issued. It was on that date that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously ruled in favor of the Trump administration opening the door for the federal government to begin withholding funds from federal jurisdictions. As was stated at the time: (The decision) recognizes the lawful authority of the attorney general to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities. But you might have picked up on something with the timing of that decision...
February 26th, of 2020 was just days before all the federal government’s focus shifted to the pandemic. That's why you may not have known that the federal government won on the issue against sanctuary jurisdictions and it’s also why the Trump administration didn’t immediately follow through with the withholding of funds. This time around that likely won’t be the case.
With the decision, should sanctuary jurisdictions decide to continue to violate U.S. immigration laws as many have been vocal about – there could be a very specific price tag attached to it. Sanctuary policies are defined as: Those followed by towns, cities, counties, states, and other jurisdictions that restrict most forms of cooperation with federal immigration authorities. They are explicitly forbidden under federal law (8 USC § 1373) and violate the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution (Article VI, Clause 2) and the 10th Amendment.
According to the current Center for Immigration Studies map, there are eleven ‘Sanctuary States’:
- California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington
There are also a total of 564 local ‘Sanctuary Cities’ across the country as well, though most are operating within the sanctuary states. In Florida, in the wake of the passage of 2019’s “Sanctuary Cities” law enabling the state to act against any defiant local government and officials, there are no longer any sanctuary jurisdictions.
In addition to President Trump’s immediate effort to reinstate his first administration's border policies in securing the southern border, which included the ending of the Biden-era CBP One app, reinstituting the Remain in Mexico policy, and finishing the construction of the border wall, he’s already promised the largest mass deportation event in US history, which Border Czar Tom Homan indicated was already underway.
While many sanctuary jurisdictions doubled or tripled down on their sanctuary policies in advance of the Trump administration, it’s possible that much of it turns out to be posturing. There may be less resistance than many suspect because it is within President Trump’s legal right to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. On that note...
One other lever that could be used...the prosecution of state and local public officials who violate the law. Immigration policy is the policy of the federal government alone. Any state or local government official who protects those who’ve chosen to break federal immigration law is engaged in aiding and abetting a federal criminal. They could be and should be prosecuted as such.
Yesterday, a new Justice Department directive suggested that could soon be coming as a new task force has been created to identify unconstitutional sanctuary policies within state and local governments, eliminate them, and to pursue to the prosecution of officials who unlawfully stand in the way. It may be the only way to ensure the lawlessness ends in the long run. But the removal of federal funds is a huge first step and it's a topic that’s bound to come up sooner than later based upon what happens as ICE has resumed deportation operations this week.