This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/26/nyregion/sanctuary-cities-funding.html

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Trump Can Withhold Millions From ‘Sanctuary’ States, Court Rules Trump Can Withhold Millions From ‘Sanctuary’ States, Court Rules
(about 7 hours later)
The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars in law enforcement grants from so-called sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities, a federal appeals court said in a ruling issued on Wednesday. The Trump administration can withhold millions of dollars from law enforcement agencies in states and cities that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration authorities, a federal appeals court ruled on Wednesday.
The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan conflicted with three other appeals courts, which had previously ordered the administration to release grant money to some jurisdictions. The decision, by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, was the first by an appellate court to side with the administration’s argument that it can impose conditions on the release of the money, which comes in the form of grants.
“This decision is a total break on what has been a unanimous decision from courts and judges across the country that this is illegal,” said Cody Wofsy, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, which filed an amicus curiae, or “friend of the court,” brief in the case. Three other appeals courts have previously affirmed lower court rulings that it was unlawful for the White House to tie the grant money to state and local governments’ cooperation with the federal authorities.
A handful of states — New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island — sued the U.S. government after the Department of Justice announced in 2017 that it would withhold grant money from localities that denied federal immigration authorities access to jails, among other conditions. Administration officials hailed the ruling.
The U.S. attorney general at the time, Jeff Sessions, said that such “sanctuary” policies undermined public safety. “Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the attorney general to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” Alexei Woltornist, a Justice Department spokesman, said.
Federal appeals courts in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco had previously ruled against the federal government in separate cases about the issue. Officials with the jurisdictions that filed the lawsuit that led to the decision vowed to continue battling the administration.
But the Second Circuit said its reading of the law showed that the federal government has the authority to impose conditions on states and localities receiving federal grant money. The appellate judges noted that the U.S. Supreme Court has observed that the federal government has power over states where immigration policy is concerned. “President Trump’s latest retaliation against his hometown takes away security funding from the number one terrorist target in America,” Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York City said in a statement, “all because we refuse to play by his arbitrary rules.”
“Today’s decision rightfully recognizes the lawful authority of the attorney general to ensure that Department of Justice grant recipients are not at the same time thwarting federal law enforcement priorities,” said Alexei Woltornist, a spokesman for the Justice Department. “We’ll see President Trump back in court,” he added. “And we will win.”
It was unclear if the states planned to appeal. The Supreme Court often hears cases to resolve conflicts among federal appeals courts. Gurbir S. Grewal, the attorney general of New Jersey, said he was “disappointed by the ruling” and he, too, indicated that the fight was not over.
The federal money in question is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. Created in 2006 and named after a young New York police officer fatally shot while guarding the home of a cooperating witness, the grant is used by Congress to dispense more than $250 million every year to state and local authorities for criminal justice efforts. “It’s unfortunate that the federal government has decided to weaponize the federal grant funding process in order to carry out the president’s anti-immigrant agenda,” Mr. Grewal said, “but I’m confident that we will ultimately prevail in the courts.”
New York City, for instance, receives about $4 million a year in JAG funding to pay salaries for emergency responders and fund drug prosecutions, among other programs. The decision comes amid an escalating crackdown by the administration on so-called sanctuary policies, which limit the extent to which state and local law enforcement agencies can help federal immigration authorities.
In its unanimous decision on Wednesday, a three-judge appellate panel reversed a lower-court ruling in New York. Judge Edgardo Ramos of District Court in Manhattan had ruled in 2018 that the Trump administration could not compel states and cities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities as a condition for receiving the grant money. New York City, Chicago, Philadelphia, California and other places that have such policies have seen increased activity this year by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, which has diverted agents from the southern border to assist with arrests in some areas.
That ruling was considered a victory for the city and the states that had sued the federal government. The agency has also issued subpoenas to law enforcement authorities in sanctuary jurisdictions seeking information on immigrants in their custody, and its acting director, Matthew T. Albence, has denounced the policies in sharply worded statements as threatening public safety.
The Trump administration has intensified its efforts to crack down on places with sanctuary policies, especially New York, where a law that allows undocumented immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses and blocks federal authorities from gaining access to a motor vehicles database has led to a bitter standoff between federal and state officials. The Second Circuit ruling, by a unanimous three-judge panel and written by Judge Reena Raggi, reversed a lower court judge’s decision, and found that the federal government had the discretion to impose conditions when distributing grant money.
The federal government canceled a Medicaid grant that will cost the state hundreds of millions of dollars, and is delaying funding for the Second Avenue subway and a planned rail tunnel between New York City and New Jersey. It is also blocking New Yorkers from enrolling in Trusted Traveler programs, such as Global Entry, and halting the export of cars with New York titles. The appellate opinion, which applies only to the jurisdictions that filed the suit, noted that the Supreme Court had repeatedly observed that the federal government has power over states where immigration policy is concerned.
Judge Raggi, who wrote in her opinion that the case involved “several of the most divisive issues confronting our country,” was appointed to the federal bench by President Ronald Reagan and elevated to the appeals court by President George W. Bush. Also on the panel were Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., who was appointed to the Second Circuit by Mr. Reagan, and Judge José A. Cabranes, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton.
The case was brought by New York and several other states after the Justice Department announced that it would withhold grant money from localities that denied federal immigration authorities access to jails, among other conditions.
Judge Edgardo Ramos of Federal District Court in Manhattan ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in 2018, saying that the Trump administration did not have the “lawful authority” to impose such conditions on funding. .
Judge Ramos blocked the administration from enforcing its conditions on New York City, New York State, New Jersey and five other states that joined the lawsuit: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Virginia and Washington.
It was unclear on Wednesday which of two options the states involved in the New York case might pursue: requesting review from the full Second Circuit, or asking the Supreme Court, which typically resolves conflicting rulings among federal appeals courts, to take up the case.
The grants in question, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants, are the biggest source of federal law enforcement funding to state and local jurisdictions. New York City has received about $4 million a year in such funding. The money has, among other things, paid the salaries of emergency responders and covered the cost of drug prosecutions.
The dispute has its origins in an executive order issued by Mr. Trump early in his term that directed the attorney general and the Department of Homeland Security to make sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for federal grants. The order was successfully challenged.
In July 2017, Jeff Sessions, the attorney general at the time, zeroed in on the Byrne grants, imposing a set of conditions that effectively rendered sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible for the money.
The conditions included requiring grant recipients to allow federal agents to interview immigrants in their custody and to provide the federal authorities with notice when immigrants were scheduled to be released.
The three appeals courts that previously ruled against the administration, in Chicago, Philadelphia and San Francisco, all found that such restrictions were improper.
“This decision is a total break on what has been a unanimous decision from courts and judges across the country that this is illegal,” said Cody Wofsy, a staff lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union Immigrants’ Rights Project, which filed an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief in the case.
Mr. Wofsy said the limits on grant money were “part of the administration’s larger campaign to coerce and force” states and local governments “to become part of the federal deportation system.” Under the U.S. Constitution, he said, “states have the privilege to refuse.”
The crackdown on states with policies and laws that shield undocumented immigrants has been felt acutely in New York in recent months. After a law went into effect allowing such immigrants to get driver’s licenses, and barring federal agencies from gaining access to a motor vehicles database, the administration barred New Yorkers from enrolling in Trusted Traveler programs like Global Entry and halted the export of cars with New York titles.
In a statement, Steven Choi, the executive director of the New York Immigration Coalition, said, “Today’s ruling essentially sanctions the federal administration’s extortion of cities who have enacted policies to ensure local control of law enforcement dollars and protect immigrant communities.”
The Byrne grant program, which dispenses more than $250 million a year, was created in 2006 and named for a New York police officer who was fatally shot while guarding the home of a cooperating witness.
“Officer Eddie Byrne’s legacy reminds us that maintaining strong relationships with immigrant communities keeps all New Yorkers safe,” Bitta Mostofi, the city’s immigrant affairs commissioner, said.