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

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

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.

 

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

payment methods

A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS?

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and we can't afford to come up short. But when a reader recently asked how being a nonprofit makes Mother Jones different from other news organizations, we realized we needed to lay this out better: Because "in absolutely every way" is essentially the answer.

So we tried to explain why your year-end donations are so essential, and we'd like your help refining our pitch about what make Mother Jones valuable and worth reading to you.

We'd also like your support of our journalism with a year-end donation if you can right now—all online gifts will be doubled until we hit our $350,000 goal thanks to an incredibly generous donor's matching gift pledge.

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