ReportWire

Tag: sanctuary policy

  • Trump can’t deny funds to L.A. and 30 other ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions, judge rules

    [ad_1]

    The Trump administration cannot deny funding to Los Angeles and 30 other cities and counties because of “sanctuary” policies that limit their cooperation with federal immigration agencies, a judge ruled late Friday.

    The judge issued a preliminary injunction that expands restrictions the court handed down in April that blocked funding cuts to 16 cities and counties, including San Francisco and Santa Clara, after federal officials classified them as “sanctuary jurisdictions.”

    U.S. District Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco ruled then that Trump’s executive order cutting funding was probably unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers doctrine.

    Friday’s order added more than a dozen more jurisdictions to the preliminary injunction, including Los Angeles, Alameda County, Berkeley, Baltimore, Boston and Chicago.

    Mayor Karen Bass’ office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    In a statement, a spokesperson for the White House said the Trump administration expected to ultimately win in its effort on appeal.

    “The government — at all levels — has the duty to protect American citizens from harm,” Abigail Jackson, a spokesperson for the White House, said in a statement. “Sanctuary cities interfere with federal immigration enforcement at the expense and safety and security of American citizens. We look forward to ultimate vindication on the issue.”

    The preliminary injunction is the latest chapter in an ongoing effort by the Trump administration to force “sanctuary cities” to assist and commit local resources to federal immigration enforcement efforts.

    Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice published a list of what it determined to be sanctuary jurisdictions, or local entities that have “policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.”

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” Atty. Gen. Pamela Bondi said in a statement accompanying the published list.

    Several cities and counties across the country have adopted sanctuary city policies, but specifics as to what extent they’re willing — or unwilling — to do for federal immigration officials have varied.

    The policies typically do not impede federal officials from conducting immigration enforcement activities, but largely keep local jurisdictions from committing resources to the efforts.

    The policies also don’t prevent local agencies from enforcing judicial warrants, which are signed by a judge. Cooperation on “detainers” or holds on jailed suspects issued by federal agencies, along with enforcement of civil immigration matters, is typically limited by sanctuary policies.

    Federal officials in the suit have so far referred to “sanctuary” jurisdictions as local governments that don’t honor immigration detainer requests, don’t assist with administrative warrants, don’t share immigration status information, or don’t allow local police to assist in immigration enforcement operations.

    Orrick noted that the executive orders threatened to withhold all federal funding if the cities and counties in question did not adhere to the Trump administration’s requests.

    In the order, the judge referred to the executive order as a “coercive threat” and said it was unconstitutional.

    Orrick, who sits on the bench in the Northern District of California, was appointed by former President Obama.

    The Trump administration has been ratcheting up efforts to force local jurisdictions to assist in immigration enforcement. The administration has filed lawsuits against cities and counties, vastly increased street operations and immigration detentions, and deployed National Guard troops to Los Angeles as it increased immigration operations.

    The U.S. Department of Justice in June sued Los Angeles, and local officials, alleging its sanctuary city law is “illegal.”

    The suit alleged that the city was looking to “thwart the will of the American people regarding deportations” by enacting sanctuary city policies.

    [ad_2]

    Salvador Hernandez

    Source link

  • 20 states, including California, sue DOJ to stop immigration requirements on crime victim funds

    [ad_1]

    A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don’t cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because of their immigration status.The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority.The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation.“These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don’t breakdown neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they’ve suffered an unimaginable trauma,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration’s threat to withhold funds “the most heinous act” he’s seen in politics.The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars.Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards.The funds are also used to pay for other services, including testing rape kits, funding grants to domestic violence recovery organizations, trauma recovery centers and more.Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets.“The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. “These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.”The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon.President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it canceled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations.And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote “gender ideology,” or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally.Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is.The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would “continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit. See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    A coalition of attorneys general from 20 states and Washington, D.C., is asking a federal judge to stop the U.S. Department of Justice from withholding federal funds earmarked for crime victims if states don’t cooperate with the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.

    The lawsuit filed Monday in Rhode Island federal court seeks to block the Justice Department from enforcing conditions that would cut funding to a state or subgrantee if it refuses to honor civil immigration enforcement requests, denies U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers access to facilities or fails to provide advance notice of release dates of individuals possibly wanted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement because of their immigration status.

    This content is imported from YouTube.
    You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

    The lawsuit asks that the conditions be thrown out, arguing that the administration and the agency are overstepping their constitutional and administrative authority.

    The lawsuit also argues that the requirements are not permitted or outlined in the Victims of Crime Act, known as VOCA, and would interfere with policies created to ensure victims and witnesses report crimes without fear of deportation.

    “These people did not ask for this status as a crime victim. They don’t breakdown neatly across partisan lines, but they share one common trait, which is that they’ve suffered an unimaginable trauma,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin said during a video news conference Monday, calling the administration’s threat to withhold funds “the most heinous act” he’s seen in politics.

    The federal conditions were placed on VOCA funding, which provides more than a billion dollars annually to states for victims compensation programs and grants that fund victims assistance organizations. VOCA funding comes entirely from fines and penalties in federal court cases, not from tax dollars.

    Every state and territory has a victims compensation program that follows federal guidelines, but largely is set up under state law to provide financial help to crime victims, including medical expense reimbursement, paying for crime scene cleanup, counseling or helping with funeral costs for homicide victims. VOCA covers the cost of about 75% of state compensation program awards.

    The funds are also used to pay for other services, including testing rape kits, funding grants to domestic violence recovery organizations, trauma recovery centers and more.

    Advocates and others argue that the system needs to protect victims regardless of their immigration status and ensure that reporting a crime does not lead to deportation threats. They also say that marginalized communities, such as newly arrived immigrants, are more likely to be crime targets.

    “The federal government is attempting to use crime victim funds as a bargaining chip to force states into doing its bidding on immigration enforcement,” New York Attorney General Letitia James, who also joined the lawsuit, said in a statement Monday. “These grants were created to help survivors heal and recover, and we will fight to ensure they continue to serve that purpose … We will not be bullied into abandoning any of our residents.”

    The Associated Press left a message seeking comment from a DOJ spokesperson Monday afternoon.

    President Donald Trump’s administration has sought to withhold or pull back other federal funding or grant funding midstream, saying awardees and programs no longer agree with its priorities. In April, it canceled about $800 million in DOJ grants, some of which were awarded to victims service and survivor organizations.

    And in June, states filed a lawsuit over added requirements in Violence Against Women Act funding that mandated applicants agree not to promote “gender ideology,” or run diversity, equity and inclusion programs or prioritize people in the country illegally.

    Several attorneys general said the VOCA conditions appear to be another way the administration is targeting so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, though there is no clear definition of what a sanctuary state or city is.

    The Trump administration earlier this month released an updated list of states, cities and counties it considers sanctuary jurisdictions. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in the August announcement that the department would “continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    As of Monday afternoon attorneys general from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin — all Democrats — had signed on to the lawsuit.

    See more coverage of top California stories here | Download our app | Subscribe to our morning newsletter | Find us on YouTube here and subscribe to our channel

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Justice Department releases a new list of sanctuary jurisdictions. L.A. County is not on it

    [ad_1]

    The Department of Justice published a new list Tuesday of “sanctuary” jurisdictions that it claims have policies, laws or regulations that obstruct enforcement of federal immigration laws.

    Although the list includes the Trump administration’s typical targets — the city of Los Angeles and the state of California — it is much shorter than a previous list issued by the Department of Homeland Security. And at least one local area that has become a major battleground over immigration is not on it: L.A. County.

    Los Angeles County has not formally declared itself a sanctuary jurisdiction. However, the county that it is home to more than 2 million residents who are undocumented or living with undocumented family members was included on a Homeland Security list of sanctuary jurisdictions published in May. That list was subsequently removed from the department’s website.

    In a news release, the Department of Justice said Tuesday that the new federal list of 35 cities, counties and states — a much lower figure than the hundreds of jurisdictions that appeared on the previous Homeland Security list — is “not exhaustive” and “will be updated as federal authorities gather further information.”

    A spokesperson for the Justice Department did not answer specific questions from The Times about why L.A. County was not on the list.

    “These designations were made after a thorough review of documented laws, ordinances, and executive directives by the listed jurisdictions,” the agency states on its website. “This initial list of designated Sanctuary Jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly, to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions that have remediated their policies, practices, and laws. Each state, county, and city will have an opportunity to respond to its placement on the list.”

    The new Justice Department list is just the latest effort by the Trump administration to ramp up pressure on cities, counties and states that have policies or laws that restrict collaboration with federal immigration authorities.

    But it also represents a more targeted focus. The previous Homeland Security list, which included most of California’s 58 counties, sparked ridicule for its errors. It even included the conservative city of Huntington Beach, which declared itself a nonsanctuary city a few days after Trump took office and sued the state of California over its sanctuary policies.

    Gov. Gavin’s Newsom office dismissed the new Department of Justice list Tuesday as “another PR stunt by the federal government to scare people.”

    “Like their last failed attempt at this ridiculous and meaningless list, which they were forced to pull down within days because of the backlash, this was created without any input or criteria,” Diana Crofts-Pelayo, a spokesperson for the governor, said Tuesday in a statement. “California is confident in the balance of our law.”

    L.A. Mayor Karen Bass also seemed committed to her city’s sanctuary status.

    “Los Angeles’ law is legally sound and we will always stand with the people of Los Angeles, especially in the face of continued assaults on our city,” Bass told The Times.

    Now that the Department of Justice has winnowed down its inventory of offenders, California is one of 13 states, mostly on the West Coast and in the Northeast, that the Trump administration has identified as having policies or laws that impede federal immigration agents.

    Only four county jurisdictions across the country are included in the Department of Justice list: Baltimore County, Md.; Cook County, Ill.; San Diego County and San Francisco County. Three of the 18 cities on the list — Berkeley, Los Angeles and San Francisco — are in California.

    “Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,” U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi said in a statement Tuesday. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.”

    In April, Trump signed an executive order, “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Justice Department to work with Homeland Security to publish a list of jurisdictions that “continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”

    The Justice Department has since taken legal action against a number of sanctuary jurisdictions — including L.A., where the City Council voted unanimously in November to declare the city a sanctuary jurisdiction and block any city resources from being used for immigration enforcement.

    In June, the Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit against the city of Los Angeles, L.A. Mayor Karen Bass and the L.A. City Council that described L.A.’s sanctuary law as “illegal.” Officials, the lawsuit said, “refuse to cooperate or share information, even when requested, with federal immigration authorities.”

    “Jurisdictions like Los Angeles that flout federal law by prioritizing illegal aliens over American citizens are undermining law enforcement at every level,” Bondi said in a June statement. “It ends under President Trump.”

    Last month, Bondi announced a “major victory” for the Department of Justice: the city of Louisville, Ky., she said, was ditching its sanctuary policies after receiving a letter from her office.

    “This should set an example to other cities,” Bondi said on X. “Instead of forcing us to sue you — which we will, without hesitation — follow the law, get rid of sanctuary policies, and work with us to fix the illegal immigration crisis.

    On Tuesday, the Justice Department said in a news release that “the federal government will assist any jurisdiction that desires to be taken off this list to identify and eliminate their sanctuary policies.”

    L.A. County leaders have at times taken steps to oppose Trump’s aggressive clampdown on immigrants. Last week, for example, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 0 to direct county lawyers to draft an ordinance that prohibits officers, including federal agents, from concealing their identities with masks, except for medical reasons or when working in an undercover operation.

    But county officials have stopped short of declaring the county a sanctuary jurisdiction. And on Tuesday few L.A. County leaders responded publicly to the news that the county was no longer on the federal government’s official list of sanctuary jurisdictions.

    In a statement to The Times after the Justice Department released its list, L.A. County Supervisor Kathryn Barger, who abstained from last week’s vote on masked law enforcement, said she had “worked hard to advance a thoughtful approach to governance — one that upholds the law while respecting the dignity of all individuals.”

    “I remain committed to leading with transparency, accountability, and a balanced perspective that prioritizes both public safety and community trust,” Barger said.

    [ad_2]

    Jenny Jarvie

    Source link