An Appeals Court Just Thwarted Trump’s Efforts to Punish Sanctuary Cities

The administration’s tactics could lead to “tyranny.”

An immigration protest outside the U.S. Capitol last month.Ting Shen/Xinhua via ZUMA Wire

Facts matter: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter. Support our nonprofit reporting. Subscribe to our print magazine.

A federal appeals court on Thursday upheld a lower court’s decision to issue a national injunction against the Trump administration’s efforts to deny federal funding to sanctuary cities.

The three-judge panel sided with the city of Chicago, which sued the Trump administration last year after Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced that the DOJ would deny certain publicly safety grants to law enforcement agencies in cities that limited their cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The city’s lawyers had argued that Sessions exceeded his authority when he placed conditions on the grants beyond what Congress had outlined when it set up the programs. The judges agreed, ruling to uphold the injunction while Chicago’s lawsuit winds its way through the federal courts.

“The Attorney General in this case used the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement,” Judge Ilana Rovner on behalf of the court. “But the power of the purse rests with Congress[.]”

In a strong rebuke to the administration, Rovner added that allowing federal agencies to manipulate conditions for grant funding without congressional approval could lead to “tyranny.”

The legal bout is but one of many between the administration and cities and states challenging its immigration policies.

Correction: This article has been revised to more accurately describe the ruling, which upheld a lower court’s decision to issue a nationwide injunction.

 

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We've never been very good at being conservative.

And usually, that serves us well in doing the ambitious, hard-hitting journalism that you turn to Mother Jones for. But it also means we can't afford to come up short when it comes to scratching together the funds it takes to keep our team firing on all cylinders, and the truth is, we finished our budgeting cycle on June 30 about $100,000 short of our online goal.

This is no time to come up short. It's time to fight like hell, as our namesake would tell us to do, for a democracy where minority rule cannot impose an extreme agenda, where facts matter, and where accountability has a chance at the polls and in the press. If you value our reporting and you can right now, please help us dig out of the $100,000 hole we're starting our new budgeting cycle in with an always-needed and always-appreciated donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate