Federal Appeals Court says Trump can with hold grant moneys to cities that do not support the feds.
Good Call.
1 Like
Yes, it is a good call.
Now what happens when San Francisco calls a state of emergency over the Coronavirus?
1 Like
…the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has plenary power over immigration, and has said that “over no conceivable subject is the legislative power of Congress more complete than it is over” immigration. Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 305 (1993). Similarly, the Supreme Court has recognized that it is Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate policies pertaining to aliens’ ability to enter and remain in the United States.
Must be a bunch of heavy traffic, having difficulty fetching the Opinion of the Court at the Second Circuit’s website.
So let them pass a new law. What does the current law state? They shound enforce that one until the Congress changes it.
Opinion of the Court in the OP case.
Unanimous opinion by Senior United States Circuit Judge Reena Raggi, joined by Senior United States Circuit Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr. and United States Circuit Judge José A. Cabranes.
1 Like
There appear to be enough votes to block en banc review.
Since there is now a circuit split, this will have to go off to the Supreme Court for resolution.
Could you explain what en banc process is?
This is a lot like when the feds forced Colorado into submission over the legal age of drinking.
Normally a three judge panel considers appeals.
However, the losing party can ask for en banc reconsideration, meaning all active Second Circuit Judges would take part. All active judges are eligible to participate, plus any senior judges who participated in the three judge panel are eligible. If a majority votes to reconsider, the original three judge panel judgement is vacated and the en banc panel would reconsider the case.
However, because there are now more Republican appointed judges at the Second Circuit and because the two senior judges who were on the three judge panel are Republican, there is zero chance of en banc reconsideration actually happening.
Most likely the losing party will not even try, but will instead go directly to the Supreme Court.
1 Like
Fantastic news. What’s sad is that it had to go this far at all.
Got it. Thanks for the explanation.
1 Like
Your welcome.
From the like one or two sentence summary I saw on Fox, the subject law was to establish funding to the state but there was a condition that they provide information to the Fedreal government. Since they wwere not complying in the immigration area, there were grounds under the law not to fund…for that particular grant. How extensive to other conditions and grants I don’t know.
I don’t think the Senate or Trump would be in a mood to withdraw that condition on the law.
1 Like
I was told in another thread the government never withhold money to get their way and doing so was illegal…
Do you believe this will backfire when power changes hands?
I haven’t been able to read the opinion yet, but wanted to see if you have and your thoughts as this relates to SD v Dole like in NFIB v Sebelius?
Doesn’t Congress still have the power of the purse??
odd you though this would be illegal if Sanders did it to increase teacher wages.
1 Like
Next should be DeBalledsio’s “no bail” for arrested criminals in NY.
I swear, who thought it was a good idea to release criminals without bail after they commit brazen crimes?
