The left is going nuts with headlines about their newest hero, Obama-appointed U.S. District Judge William Orrick, saying he blocked evil Donald Trump from hurting innocent women and children in sanctuary cities by an attempted fascist power grab.
The headlines, all copying from the same AP article, basically say A federal judge blocked Trump’s attempt to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities”… It was the third major setback for the administration on immigration policy.
In truth, though, the judge, by his own admission, issues an order that actually does nothing other than make a headline for MSM to run with and is based not on what the Executive Order says, but what the judge claims Trump and Sessions are THINKING!
Oh, and the judge just happens to be major Democrat donor, Obama supporter, and the same guy who blocked the release of undercover videos showing Planned Parenthood execs negotiating prices for aborted baby organs in 2015.
Here’s the skinny in a nutshell
- The judge admits the EO only says to enforce existing laws that were signed in 1996 by Bill Clinton
- The judge claims that because the order is so clearly worded, it’s not plausible that it doesn’t have a hidden meaning
- The judge then makes up what he thinks the hidden meaning is based on what he claims Trump and Sessions want to do
- The judge admits that even if Trump and Sessions DID want to do what the judge claims they are thinking, the EO still prohibits them from doing it, but..
- The judge blocks the EO because the secret thoughts of Trump and Sessions have caused the sanctuary cities anxiety
Yes, this is real, and this is why the MSM is just harpon on the one and two liner talking points and not the details.
Here’s a quick run down of all items:
The Executive Order
The Executive Order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”, says nothing more than to enforce existing sanctuary cities laws, everyone agrees on this. It includes things like:
Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the executive branch to:
(a) Ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States, including the INA, against all removable aliens, consistent with Article II, Section 3 of the United States Constitution and section 3331 of title 5, United States Code;
Sec. 5. Enforcement Priorities. In executing faithfully the immigration laws of the United States, the Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) shall prioritize for removal those aliens described by the Congress in sections 212(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 235, and 237(a)(2) and (4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(6)(C), 1225, and 1227(a)(2) and (4)), as well as removable aliens who:
(a) Have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(b) Have been charged with any criminal offense, where such charge has not been resolved;
Etc, etc, follow the law, etc. etc…
The Judge’s Ruling
Of the entire EO, only section 9 and 9(a) are being challenged which say:
Sec. 9. Sanctuary Jurisdictions. It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a State, or a political subdivision of a State, shall comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.
(a) In furtherance of this policy, the Attorney General and the Secretary, in their discretion and to the extent consistent with law, shall 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.
Again, this simply says to enforce existing sanctuary cities laws, and the judge even agrees when he says:
If Section 9(a) does not direct the Attorney General and Secretary to place new conditions on federal funds then it only authorizes them to do something they already have the power to do, enforce existing grant requirements.
Yes, he agrees the law is the law, and enforcing the law is completely within the purview of Trump. But, he can’t accept that it’s really this simple, so he spends 40+ pages venting his frustrations. He lectures Trump about wanting to make up laws to control finances since only congress can do that. And, he repeats that the EO can’t possibly mean what it says because if it were this simple, there would not even be a reason to issue the EO.
So, he comes to the conclusion that since Trump’s EO clearly says just to enforce the laws, what Trump really means is that Trump will make up new laws, bypass Congress and perform Obama-type shenanigans. The judge only knows this because he has special mind powers.
He then proceeds to do what any good leftist would do (like the Travel Ban judge); he goes and finds Trump and Sessions giving speeches and interviews about sanctuary cities and claims that what they said in those instances is what this EO really means.
Then, he claims that since he now magically knows what the EO is really about, not because of what the EO says, but because of his special mind powers, that sanctuary cities will be harmed by this EO.
AND, because they will be harmed by the EO that doesn’t mean what it says, but by what his mind powers tells him it really means, they have ALREADY been harmed by “pre-enforcement“, anxiety and “the Counties have demonstrated that they are suffering a present “injury 
inflicted by the mere existence and threatened enforcement of the [Order].”
Therefore, the part of the executive order that says to enforce the existing sanctuary City laws as stated in 8 U.S.C. 1373 (that has been around since being singed into law by Bill Clinton in 1996) can only be enforced as it is written.
Yes, he really does say that, when he says that his very own ruling…
…does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373, nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such. It does prohibit the Government from exercising Section 9(a) in a way that violates the Constitution.
Still with me camera guy?
- Bill Clinton signed 8 U.S.C. 1373 into law in 1996
- Nobody, including Trump, has ever tried to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373
- By the mere issuance of the EO saying to enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373, San Francisco and Santa Clara have been harmed because
- The wording of the EO is clear and lawful
- But the judge has mystical mind powers to know the EO doesn’t actually mean what the EO says
- Since the EO means what the judge claims Trump wants it to mean, it will cause harm to San Francisco and Santa Clara
- Since it will cause harm to them if enforced the way THE JUDGE says Trump secretly wants to enforce it , it already caused harm to them
- Therefore, Trump cannot do what the judge’s mystical mind powers know Trump wants to do and
- Trump can only enforce the EO and 8 U.S.C. 1373 as it is actually written in the EO…
So, the liberal left gets a great headline about a savior judge who stopped evil Trump from doing something that, well, only the judge said he would do, and the EO continues unaffected in enforcement of existing sanctuary cities laws.
No Impact On Executive Order
The Justice Department even gave a statement to CBS News that they will continue to move forward and follow the Executive Order.
The Department of Justice previously stated to the Court, and reiterates now, that it will follow the law with respect to regulation of sanctuary jurisdictions. Accordingly, the Department will continue to enforce existing grant conditions and will continue to enforce [the executive order]. Further, the order does not purport to enjoin the Department’s independent legal authority to enforce the requirements of federal law applicable to communities that violate federal immigration law or federal grant conditions.
Thankfully, the MSM never lets facts take the place of a good hyped up headline, especially when their openly biased buddies in black robes can help them out.
You can read the original documents from the sanctuary cities, as well as the complete ruling, at hese links: