Name: Supreme Court Tosses Trump-Era Sanctuary City Cases at Biden Administration’s Request
Brand: lawandcrime.com
SKU: lawandcrime-com-896
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Supreme Court Tosses Trump-Era Sanctuary City Cases at Biden Administration’s Request

preview

Sharecopy linkImmigrant families and activists march during a rally outside the Tennessee State Capitol against HB 2315, a bill recently passed as law that will prohibit sanctuary city policies in the state May 31, 2018 in Nashville, Tenn.Dropping three Trump-era cases over efforts to withhold Justice Department funding from states and cities with pro-immigration policies, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to clear so-called sanctuary city petitions from their docket. The high court did so on Thursday night, in a moved hailed by local prosecutors in mostly blue states.“Local law enforcements’ ability to protect their jurisdictions should never be compromised to push an anti-immigrant agenda,” New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) wrote in a statement. “These grants are critical to our efforts to protect New Yorkers, which is why the former president’s attempts to hold them hostage was so unconscionable. We’re pleased that despite the Trump administration’s attempts to exact revenge on cities and states through vindictive policies and continued litigation that we were able to work with the Biden administration to dismiss this case in the Supreme Court. We look forward to continuing to work with the administration to ensure state and localities never have to choose between protecting their autonomy and protecting the public’s safety.”The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.A trio of joint stipulations on the Supreme Court’s docket brought an unceremonious end to former President Donald Trump’s crusade against sanctuary jurisdictions, the states and cities opting to limit local cooperation with federal authorities. The Trump administration retaliated against them by preventing them from receiving up to $385 million in justice assistance grants.Those efforts before the , Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, but the New York City-based Second Circuit bucked the trend, sparking a furious dissent by U.S. Circuit Judge Raymond Lohier, an Obama appointee who called the decision “astonishing.”“Until today, every single circuit judge to have considered the questions presented by this appeal has resolved them the same way,” Lohier on July 2020. “That’s twelve judges — including one former Supreme Court justice — appointed by six different presidents, sitting in four separate circuits, representing a remarkable array of views and backgrounds, responsible for roughly forty percent of the United States population, who, when asked whether the Attorney General may impose the challenged conditions, have all said the same thing: No.”Trump flipped the Second Circuit conservative with an appointment in late 2019.The circuit split made the controversy ripe for judicial review, and a trio of petitions for&nbsp;a writ of certiorari hit the docket during Trump’s lame-duck session.In the Second Circuit case, seven states—New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, Virginia and Rhode Island—and New York City sued over the restrictions in 2018, winning a ruling from a federal judge in Manhattan ordering the Justice Department to release grants named after late New York City Police Officer Eddie Byrne, who was assassinated in the line of duty in 1988.The New York City Law Department did not immediately respond to an email requesting comment.(Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)Have a tip we should know?Adam Klasfeld - Managing EditorPlease enable JavaScript to view the

Sharecopy linkImmigrant families and activists march during a rally outside the Tennessee State Capitol against HB 2315, a bill recently passed as law that will prohibit sanctuary city policies in the state May 31, 2018 in Nashville, Tenn.Dropping three Trump-era cases over efforts to withhold Justice Department funding from states and cities with pro-immigration policies, the Biden administration asked the Supreme Court to clear so-called sanctuary city petitions from their docket. The high court did so on Thursday night, in a moved hailed by local prosecutors in mostly blue states.“Local...

public

adam-klasfeld

Law, Crime, LIVE Trials and Smart Legal Analysis.

lawandcrime.com

Credible

Speculation

Anecdotal Evidence

Generalization

Stacking the Deck

Appeal to Authority

Straw Man

Slippery Slope

Emotional Appeal

Red Herring

False Dilemma

Illogical

Moral Equivalency

Ad Hominem

Correlation w/o Causation

Semantics

Begging the Question

Faulty Analogy

Non Sequitur

Bandwagon

Dogmatism

Failing Occam's Razor

Biased

Pure Opinion

Hit Piece

Racial Bias

National Bias

Religious Bias

Financial Incentive

Political Agenda

Gender Bias

Misused Image/Video

Study Misinterpreted

Mistake

Misused Term

Science Misrepresented

Factual Error

Satire

Surface Level

Lack of Reliable Sources

Sensational

Not Credible

Investigative

Balanced

Well Sourced

Great Context

sports

entertainment

U.S.

international

business

technology

science

culture

politics

media

health

Supreme Court Tosses Trump-Era Sanctuary City Cases at Biden Administration’s Request

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS