SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump's comments about so-called "sanctuary cities" were scrutinized at a federal appeals court hearing Wednesday to determine whether the president's executive order threatening to cut funding from states and cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities is legal.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney Thomas asked what the court was to make of statements by Trump and his administration that the president wants to withhold money from sanctuary cities.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler said the court should not focus on those.
"The order has to be judged by its terms and not by public statements," he said.
The department is appealing a judge's ruling that permanently blocked the executive order nationwide. The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara.
The Trump administration says the order applies to a relatively small pot of money that already requires compliance with immigration law and does not threaten other federal funding.
Danielle Goldstein, an attorney for Santa Clara County, said the president was transparent about his view of the executive order.
"He was extremely clear that he wanted this executive order to be a weapon to end sanctuary jurisdictions," she said.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said in November the order threatened all federal funding and the president did not have the authority to attach new conditions to spending approved by Congress.
He cited comments by Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence of the order's scope and said the president himself had called it a "weapon" to use against recalcitrant cities.
"This executive order claims powers that the president doesn't have in an unconstitutional effort to coerce cities to change their sanctuary policies," Christine Van Aken, an attorney with the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, said.
Thomas asked Readler whether the order would be constitutional if Orrick's interpretation of it as applying to all types of funding were correct.
Readler said it might run afoul of the constitution in that case, but he insisted that Orrick's reading of it was too broad, noting the order referred specifically to the DOJ and U.S. Department of Homeland Security and not to other cabinet agencies that oversee transportation, Medicaid, or other funds.
The DOJ also says Orrick should have limited his injunction to Santa Clara and San Francisco instead of applying it nationwide.
Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald Gould asked Van Aken why San Francisco needed a nationwide injunction.
Van Aken said the city would be satisfied with an injunction that applied only to California.
The executive order is part of a push by the administration to crackdown on "sanctuary jurisdictions" — a loosely defined term for places that don't comply with immigration authorities. The administration has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. It has also moved to block a key public safety grant from sanctuary cities and states.
The Trump administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street. San Francisco and other so-called sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust needed to get people to report crime.
Deputy Santa Clara County Counsel Danielle Goldstein said the order caused sanctuary cities and counties to either "risk financial ruin" or abandon their lawmakers' policies on undocumented immigrants.
"The order was expected and intended to cause that kind of coercion," she argued.
County Counsel James Williams said in a statement after the hearing that Santa Clara County was at risk of losing about $1.7 billion in federal funds -- nearly 35 percent of its annual revenue -- for services such as emergency medical care, mental health services, public safety, and basic food and nutrition programs.
"President Trump cannot use federal funding as a weapon to force local governments to participate in the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts," Williams said.
San Francisco has told the court in a filing that it expects to receive about $1 billion in federal grants and another $1 billion in annual entitlement funds in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said after the hearing, "San Francisco follows immigration law. The federal government has always been free to enforce immigration law in San Francisco ... The federal government knows who is in our jails. If they think someone is dangerous, all they need is a criminal warrant."
© Copyright 2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Bay City News Service contributed to this report
Judge Questions Trump's Comments At Sanctuary City Hearing
/ CBS San Francisco
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump's comments about so-called "sanctuary cities" were scrutinized at a federal appeals court hearing Wednesday to determine whether the president's executive order threatening to cut funding from states and cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities is legal.
Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge Sidney Thomas asked what the court was to make of statements by Trump and his administration that the president wants to withhold money from sanctuary cities.
U.S. Department of Justice attorney Chad Readler said the court should not focus on those.
"The order has to be judged by its terms and not by public statements," he said.
The department is appealing a judge's ruling that permanently blocked the executive order nationwide. The ruling came in lawsuits filed by two California counties — San Francisco and Santa Clara.
The Trump administration says the order applies to a relatively small pot of money that already requires compliance with immigration law and does not threaten other federal funding.
Danielle Goldstein, an attorney for Santa Clara County, said the president was transparent about his view of the executive order.
"He was extremely clear that he wanted this executive order to be a weapon to end sanctuary jurisdictions," she said.
U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick said in November the order threatened all federal funding and the president did not have the authority to attach new conditions to spending approved by Congress.
He cited comments by Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions as evidence of the order's scope and said the president himself had called it a "weapon" to use against recalcitrant cities.
"This executive order claims powers that the president doesn't have in an unconstitutional effort to coerce cities to change their sanctuary policies," Christine Van Aken, an attorney with the San Francisco City Attorney's Office, said.
Thomas asked Readler whether the order would be constitutional if Orrick's interpretation of it as applying to all types of funding were correct.
Readler said it might run afoul of the constitution in that case, but he insisted that Orrick's reading of it was too broad, noting the order referred specifically to the DOJ and U.S. Department of Homeland Security and not to other cabinet agencies that oversee transportation, Medicaid, or other funds.
The DOJ also says Orrick should have limited his injunction to Santa Clara and San Francisco instead of applying it nationwide.
Ninth Circuit Judge Ronald Gould asked Van Aken why San Francisco needed a nationwide injunction.
Van Aken said the city would be satisfied with an injunction that applied only to California.
The executive order is part of a push by the administration to crackdown on "sanctuary jurisdictions" — a loosely defined term for places that don't comply with immigration authorities. The administration has sued California over three laws aimed at protecting immigrants in the country illegally. It has also moved to block a key public safety grant from sanctuary cities and states.
The Trump administration says sanctuary jurisdictions allow dangerous criminals back on the street. San Francisco and other so-called sanctuary cities say turning local police into immigration officers erodes the trust needed to get people to report crime.
Deputy Santa Clara County Counsel Danielle Goldstein said the order caused sanctuary cities and counties to either "risk financial ruin" or abandon their lawmakers' policies on undocumented immigrants.
"The order was expected and intended to cause that kind of coercion," she argued.
County Counsel James Williams said in a statement after the hearing that Santa Clara County was at risk of losing about $1.7 billion in federal funds -- nearly 35 percent of its annual revenue -- for services such as emergency medical care, mental health services, public safety, and basic food and nutrition programs.
"President Trump cannot use federal funding as a weapon to force local governments to participate in the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts," Williams said.
San Francisco has told the court in a filing that it expects to receive about $1 billion in federal grants and another $1 billion in annual entitlement funds in the 2017-18 fiscal year.
City Attorney Dennis Herrera said after the hearing, "San Francisco follows immigration law. The federal government has always been free to enforce immigration law in San Francisco ... The federal government knows who is in our jails. If they think someone is dangerous, all they need is a criminal warrant."
© Copyright 2018 CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Bay City News Service contributed to this report
In:- San Francisco
Featured Local Savings
More from CBS News
Explosion destroys vehicle in Daly City's Westlake neighborhood
San Francisco's renovated 911 emergency dispatch center has problems day after unveiling
Paul Pelosi attack: Federal judge sets sentencing date for David DePape
S.F. soccer club El Farolito feeds need to bring passion to the pitch