“SANCTUARY CITIES IN COURT” – ADMINISTRATION SPLITS A PAIR – 5th Cir. Hands ACLU & Hispanics A Big Loss In Texas, But Philly Prevails In Resisting Sessions!

http://time.com/5198642/texas-sanctuary-cities-ban-appeal/

Paul J. Weber reports for AP in Time:

“(AUSTIN, Texas) — A Texas immigration crackdown on “sanctuary cities” took effect Tuesday after a federal appeals court upheld a divisive law backed by the Trump administration that threatens elected officials with jail time and allows police officers to ask people during routine stops whether they’re in the U.S. illegally.

The ruling was a blow to Texas’ biggest cities —including Houston, Dallas and San Antonio — that sued last year to prevent enforcement of what opponents said is now the toughest state-level immigration measure on the books in the U.S.

But for the Trump administration, the decision by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans is a victory against measures seen as protecting immigrants who are in the U.S. illegally. Last week, U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions sued California over its so-called sanctuary state law.

In Texas, the fight over a new law known as Senate Bill 4 has raged for more than a year, roiling the Republican-controlled Legislature and once provoking a near-fistfight between lawmakers in the state capitol. It set off racially-charged debates, backlash from big-city police chiefs and rebuke from the government in Mexico, which is Texas’ largest trading partner and shares close ties to the state.

Since 2010, the Hispanic population in Texas has grown at a pace three times that of white residents.

“Allegations of discrimination were rejected. Law is in effect,” Republican Gov. Greg Abbott tweeted after the ruling was published.”

*************************************

Read Weber’s complete article at the link. Meanwhile, the City of Philadelphia fared better in it’s challenge to Jeff Sessions and the Administration.

Melissa Romero reports for Curbed Philly:

https://philly.curbed.com/2017/11/16/16658336/philadelphia-jeff-sessions-sanctuary-city-ruling

“Philly scored big in a lawsuit against the Trump administration over “sanctuary city” restrictions, with a federal judge ruling in favor of the city over the Department of Justice (DOJ).

On Wednesday, Judge Michael M. Baylson issued a preliminary injunction in favor of the city, ruling that Philadelphia is not a sanctuary city by the Trump administration’s terms and therefore the DOJ can’t withhold more than $1 million in federal grant money from the City of Philadelphia.

Philly doesn’t define itself as a sanctuary city, but has previously clarified that its police officers are prohibited from asking the status of immigrants. The Trump administration defines “sanctuary cities” as those that “violate a federal law requiring local and state governments to share information with federal officials about immigrants’ citizenship or legal status.”

Earlier this year, U.S. Attorney General threatened to pull funding from the Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program from sanctuary cities. The city subsequently filed a lawsuit in late August over what it called the addition of “unlawful” conditions to the JAG program.

Philadelphia receives $1.6 million in funds from the federal government for this program and on average has been provided $2.2 million over the past 11 years. A lot of this money is put toward police and courtroom upgrades and some programming.

In their lawsuit, the city claimed that DOJ could not attach three immigration-related conditions to its JAG program: 1) The city must gives ICE a heads up of the scheduled release of prisoners of interest within 48 hours; 2) allow ICE “unfettered access” to interview inmates in the prison system; and 3) the city must be in compliance with U.S. Section 1373, a federal immigration law that prohibits local governments passing laws that limit communication with the Department of Homeland Security about immigrants’s statuses.

Judge Baylson agreed with the city on conditions one and two, and also ruled that the city was not in violation U.S. Section 1373.

The ruling does not necessarily mean an end to the city’s lawsuit against DOJ. The Inquirer reports that the federal department is considering its next options. And after the injuction was issued, the DOJ sent out warning letters to 29 other sanctuary cities.

Mayor Jim Kenney said of the ruling, “Today’s ruling benefits every single Philadelphia resident. Our police officers and criminal justice partners will receive much-needed federal funding, and our city will be able to continue practices that keep our communities safe and provide victims and witnesses the security to come forward.”

**************************************

Well, as we used to say, “you win some, you lose some, some days you don’t even suit up.” Applies to litigation, as well as baseball and a whole bunch of other things in life.

Good year for Philly though — first the Eagles win the Superbowl, then the City trounces Gonzo in  court. And, with the signing of Jake Arrieta, it looks like the Phillies might be taking the “future is now” approach to rebuilding.

PWS

03-15-18

 

BREAKING: 5th Cir. Says Texas Cities Must Comply With DHS Detainers, But Blocks Laws Punishing Free Expression & Non-Cooperation!

http://www.reuters.com/article/legal-us-usa-texas-immigration/u-s-appeals-court-allows-part-of-texas-law-to-punish-sanctuary-cities-idUSKCN1C02QC

Reuters reports:

“AUSTIN, Texas (Reuters) – A U.S. appeals court on Monday issued a mixed decision on a Texas law to punish “sanctuary cities” by allowing a few parts of the law to take effect but blocking major parts of it.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit allowed the part of the Texas law that called on localities to abide by detainer requests from federal authorities to hold people in local jails to allow for checks of suspected U.S. immigration law violations.

But the court left in place a lower court decision to block a part of the law that would punish local officials who criticized state policies on immigration enforcement.

The appeals court has yet to render a full decision on the law.”

***********************************

Read the full article at the link.

This appears to be  an important victory for the Trump-Sessions program of requiring  jurisdictions to honor DHS Detainers issued by non-judicial officers. Seems clear that the 5th Circuit ultimately will vacate the injunction on this part of Texas SB 4.

PWS

O9-25-17

THE HILL: RAPPAPORT ON TEXAS INJUNCTION OF PARTS OF SB 4 — City of El Cenizo v. State of Texas

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/immigration/349103-texas-courts-pro-sanctuary-cities-decision-can-cripple

Nolan writes:

“At the end of August, a federal district court in Texas ruled against that state, halting an immigration enforcement law shortly before it was to go into effect.

The court issued a preliminary (temporary) injunction to halt the implementation of five allegedly unconstitutional provisions in Texas’ anti-sanctuary city law, Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), including one that would require law enforcement agencies in Texas to “comply with, honor, and fulfill” any immigration detainer issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

This means that the court found a substantial likelihood that the plaintiffs (in this case, the parties opposing the state of Texas) will succeed in establishing that those provisions are unconstitutional when a decision is rendered on the merits of the case.

If the decision on ICE detainers is correct, which seems to be the case, it could cripple ICE’s ability to prevent removable criminal aliens from absconding when they are released from custody by state and local law enforcement agencies.

. . . .

When Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed SB 4 into law, he said that denying detainer requests can have deadly consequences.  This is illustrated by the case of Kate Steinle, who was shot dead by a criminal alien while she was walking with her father on a busy pier in San Francisco.

The alien was a repeat felon who had been deported five times, but the police department that had been holding him released him in disregard of a detainer request because San Francisco is a sanctuary city that does not honor detainer requests.

Preventing the use of detainers could have unintended consequences. If other federal courts agree with the decision’s disposition of the detainer issue; state and local police in every part of the country may have to stop honoring detainer requests, and ICE could use the time that would have been spent following up on detainers to go after noncriminal aliens.

ICE can encourage state and local police departments to participate in the federal 287(g) Program, which allows participants to enter into a partnership with ICE on the basis of a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). They would receive training on immigration enforcement and delegated immigration authority, which includes the option of being able to detain aliens on the basis of detainers.

But ICE does not have the resources to train and supervise police in all of the state and local law enforcement agencies in the country.

The only solution is for Congress to grant state and local police the authority to detain aliens on the basis of an ICE detainer.”

***********************************

Read Nolan’s complete analysis over at The Hill at the link.

I agree with Nolan that the Chief District Judge Orlando L. Garcia’s analysis of SB 4’s constitutional infirmities appears to be correct. I also agree that rationale should eventually require DHS to change its detainer policy nationwide to meet constitutional standards.

That means that a battery of DHS and DOJ attorneys, of which there is no shortage, will have to work with the enforcement branches to come up with effective enforcement methods that comply with our Constitution. Stuff like that happens all the time. That’s why the Government needs good lawyers.

I don’t agree with Nolan that the only way for DHS to function is for Congress to pass legislation turning untrained local cops into immigration officers for the purpose of honoring detainers. Seems like you end up with the same problem, just “dressed up” differently.

I spent over a decade working for the Legacy INS on immigration enforcement matters. Nobody ever doubted that immigration officers could effectively carry out their duties 1) in full compliance with the U.S. Constitution, and 2) without relying on state and local officials. Indeed, the “mantra” of INS Enforcement in those days was “we’re the immigration pros, leave enforcement to us.” I guess times must have changed; but not that much. And, the Fourth Amendment hasn’t changed at all.

I also don’t buy the claim that Abbott was interested in protecting Texans from dangerous crime. No, this was about a White Nationalist agenda designed to put down minorities, particularly in the Latino community, and prevent them from getting their fair share of political power. That’s why, although Latinos make up a large proportion of Texas’s population, Latino leaders generally opposed the GOP’s and Abbott’s racially divisive action.

A bill really aimed at protecting all Texans, regardless of ethnicity or status, from violent crime would have received support from about 98% of residents (who really wants to be a victim of violent crime — almost nobody, as the BIA has observed on a number of occasions) including the overwhelming number  of Latinos. That it didn’t, and that a majority-Latino jurisdiction like El Cenizo is the lead plaintiff opposing the bill says all you need to know about the SB 4’s White Nationalist intent.

There will come a day when the Abbotts, Paxtons, and other denizens of the Texas White GOP will have to share power equitably with Latino and other minority Texans. When that happens, they can only hope that Latino leaders and politicians will have short memories, forgive the racism of the past, and move on to the future treating them with greater respect and consideration than they deserve based on their recent “sharp stick in the eyes” words and actions.

Until that happens — well, as I’ve said before, lots of work for lawyers and judges.

PWS

09-04-17