All depends on how the funding law is written.
Example, way back when – transportation funding was dependent on the states reducing the interstate speed limit to 55 mph.
Example. Back in the 80’s – certain federal funding would be withheld unless the states bumped drinking age to 21.
It would be because there is not a law that would authorize Sanders to do that. In this case, the funding is to be provided to jurisdictions that share information with the Feds as stated under law passed by Congress.
No, Trump didn’t just go off on his own and dream this up the way Obama did with his partial amnesty.
Trump is enforcing the law, as he took an oath to do.
“Faithfully Execute”, I guess Obama skipped over that part of the oath.
I haven’t read enough of the opinion yet to make an informed comment on that question. Hopefully later this evening.
This almost feels like homework.
I haven’t read the opinion either. But after looking back on my ConLaw outlines, and doing some googling:
The Court distinguished its decision in NFIB from South Dakota v. Dole by the percentage of the state’s budget that would be affected.
From what I understand of the sum of non-law enforcement federal grants to cities like New York or Los Angeles, they makes up a tiny fraction of a percent of the city’s budgets - less than the percentage involved in South Dakota v. Dole, and significantly less than the 10% of the state budget involved in NFIB v. Sebelius.
The backfire came in the form of the Trump after Obama bypassed congress with DACA. People have sympathies for the so-called dreamers, but sanctuary cities is deeply unpopular.
Well, well. Seems he’s settling in.
Just wait till this gets flipped and it’s a dem. New york city has a larger GDP than about 40 states…imagine we did this to something like kansas? Which do you think would have the larger impact?
I hope we do it.
The government is withholding money for the state to not do it the illegal way.
Miss read it.
Either I’m misunderstanding you, or you misunderstood that headline - either way, that’s the same court and decision as the OP.
Oh ■■■■■■■ bad.
She cites both those cases a number of times in a section of her opinion. She ultimately states that this case is more akin to SD v Dole than to NFIB v Sebelius. She ultimately relies on SD v Dole as a major justification for upholding the Trump rule.
Go to the top of page 57 of the PDF I linked to in the previous post. Read pages 57, 58, 59, 60 and the top of page 61. That covers the relevant subject.
