Attorneys for the city of San Francisco pushed back on the Trump administration’s latest attempt to salvage its sanctuary cities ban Tuesday, arguing that the Justice Department’s new definition of “sanctuary” doesn’t alter the basic facts of the case.
On May 22, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo that narrowly defined so-called sanctuary jurisdictions as those that refused to communicate with federal immigration officials, and exempted cities and counties that refused to keep people at the request of immigration authorities.
The new definition addressed one criticism made by U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick in March, when he blocked President Donald Trump’s plan to withhold money from sanctuary cities. Orrick had noted that “does not define ‘sanctuary jurisdiction,’ ” and “the term is not defined anywhere in the Executive Order.”
Immediately after Sessions issued his memo, the Justice Department asked Orrick to reconsider his decision to block the order. The department argued that the court must take a fresh look at the executive order in light of Sessions’ new definition.
In a court filing Tuesday, the city of San Francisco disagreed, urging Orrick to “reject (the Justice Department’s) attempt to save this unsalvageable and unconstitutional Executive Order.”
For one thing, the city argues, Sessions’ memo is only directed at certain grant programs within the Justice Department; it doesn’t affect how other agencies might choose to define a “sanctuary city.” Recognizing Sessions’ ability to make such a decision for other departments “would be a significant, unprecedented, and unauthorized expansion of the Attorney General’s powers,” the city argues.
If the Trump administration really wanted to adjust to Orrick’s injunction, it should have drafted a new, narrower executive order, as it did after judges blocked the president’s ban on travel from several majority-Muslim countries. Sessions’ memo, the city argues, doesn’t alter the text of Trump’s executive order.
This latest salvo in Trump’s war on sanctuary cities comes just after a string of tweets from the president suggesting he’s upset with Sessions’ handling of the travel ban defense. On Monday, Trump tweeted that he’d always preferred his original executive order – a broader travel ban that explicitly favored Christians entering the country – over the “watered down, politically correct version” devised by the Justice Department.
As in that case, plaintiffs in the sanctuary cities argue that the president’s tweets undercut the arguments his lawyers have made in court.
As San Francisco city attorneys noted in their filing on Tuesday, despite Sessions’ determination that the ban would only affect a handful of grants across the country, Trump has called his order a “weapon” to coerce cities into abandoning their sanctuary policies or risk being “defunded.”
Republish this article
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Republish Our Content
Thanks for your interest in republishing a story from Reveal. As a nonprofit newsroom, we want to share our work with as many people as possible. You are free to embed our audio and video content and republish any written story for free under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license and will indemnify our content as long as you strictly follow these guidelines:
-
Do not change the story. Do not edit our material, except only to reflect changes in time and location. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
-
Please credit us early in the coverage. Our reporter(s) must be bylined. We prefer the following format: By Will Evans, Reveal.
-
If republishing our stories, please also include this language at the end of the story: “This story was produced by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting, a nonprofit news organization. Learn more at revealnews.org and subscribe to the Reveal podcast, produced with PRX, at revealnews.org/podcast.”
-
Include all links from the story, and please link to us at https://www.revealnews.org.
PHOTOS
-
You can republish Reveal photos only if you run them in or alongside the stories with which they originally appeared and do not change them.
-
If you want to run a photo apart from that story, please request specific permission to license by contacting Digital Engagement Producer Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org. Reveal often uses photos we purchase from Getty and The Associated Press; those are not available for republication.
DATA
-
If you want to republish Reveal graphics or data, please contact Data Editor Soo Oh, soh@revealnews.org.
IN GENERAL
-
We do not compensate anyone who republishes our work. You also cannot sell our material separately or syndicate it.
-
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, please contact Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If you plan to republish our content, you must notify us republish@revealnews.org or email Sarah Mirk, smirk@revealnews.org.
-
If we send you a request to remove our content from your website, you must agree to do so immediately.
-
Please note, we will not provide indemnification if you are located or publishing outside the United States, but you may contact us to obtain a license and indemnification on a case-by-case basis.
If you have any other questions, please contact us at republish@revealnews.org.