UPDATED — 04.26.17 @ 9 AM EDT: Mr. Trump has tweeted (silly boy!) that the below-opinion (and the Ban 2.0 rulings) are “ridiculous” — and smack of “judge shopping. . . .”
You read it here first: Mr. Trump will lose — on his sanctuary city threats executive order, 9-0, in the United States Supreme Court. Not a single USSCT Justice will agree that he possesses the power to violate the Tenth Amendment — which is exactly what he vainly tried to do, here. Condor doesn’t just predict — on this — no, Condor flat out guarantees. . . 45 loses (again). [End, updated portion.]
I’ve not mentioned this piece of federal litigation here before, as it all seemed painfully obvious on its face — but 45 was just officially handed another courtroom loss — in his apparently unending quest, to be the least Constitutionally literate President. . . in our 240-plus years of history.
A nationwide preliminary injunction order, in the federal courthouse in San Francisco was just issued — leaving 45 rather completely hamstrung, in trying to end funding to Chicago, New York, San Francisco, Denver, Seattle, Milwaukee and various other cities around the nation. See The New York Times — here:
. . . .Judge William H. Orrick of United States District Court for the Northern District of California, issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against the administration, directing it to stop trying to cut off aid to sanctuary jurisdictions. But the order does not prevent the federal government from moving forward on designating certain places as “sanctuaries,” nor does it keep the administration from enforcing conditions for doling out federal money if they already exist, as the Justice Department has already begun to do with some law enforcement grants.
San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which had asked the judge for an injunction, “have a strong interest in avoiding unconstitutional federal enforcement and the significant budget uncertainty that has resulted from the Order’s broad and threatening language,” the judge wrote, referring to Mr. Trump’s January executive order on immigration. . . .
And, from the able Judge Orrick’s opinion, then:
. . . .Although the Government’s new interpretation of the Order is not legally plausible, in effect it appears to put the parties in general agreement regarding the Order’s constitutional limitations. The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which
the President disapproves. . . .
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that applying a narrow construction to an unconstitutionally overbroad statute does not address the confusion and potential deterrent effect caused by the language of the law itself. See, Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 (1975) (concluding, in a First Amendment case, that a narrow construction of an overbroad statute was likely inappropriate because the “deterrent effect on legitimate expression is both real and substantial.”). As discussed below, the coercive effects of the Order’s broad language counsel against adopting a narrow construction that deprives it of any legal meaning. The Government’s construction is not reasonable. It requires a complete rewriting of the Order’s language and does not “save” any part of Section 9(a)’s legal effect. There is no doubt that Section 9(a), as written, changes the law. . . . [and thus fails]. . . .
Quite so. And so — on some sunny Spring afternoons, it seems the entire Universe vibrates perfectly as one, in sublime synchronicity. This moment is one of those. Smile. . . . you know who you are. . . .