Sanctuary cities ruling: When a decider quotes Sean Spicer, it’s not a good pointer for a White House

When a prolonged list of comments from President Trump, his surrogates and his spokespersons shows adult in a sovereign justice ruling, it’s satisfactory to contend it can usually meant one thing: a constitutionally controversial executive sequence is about to get a authorised smackdown.

That was loyal in March, when sovereign judges in Hawaii and Maryland dangling Trump’s transport ban, observant a administration had showed a transparent animus toward Muslims, notwithstanding supervision lawyers’ claims to a contrary.

And it was loyal on Tuesday, when U.S. District Judge William H. Orrick of California temporarily froze Trump’s executive sequence on refuge cities, ruling that it expected disregarded a Constitution.

Trump’s order, sealed Jan. 25, threatens to cut off appropriation from internal governments that exclude to concur with immigration authorities. Santa Clara County and a city of San Francisco challenged a sequence arguing, among other things, that a boss doesn’t have the power to withhold federal money. Orrick found a plaintiffs were expected to attain on all their claims, as The Washington Post reported.

The 49-page statute focused mostly on an all-to-familiar thesis for a immature administration: bragging and boast by Trump and tip administration officials.

Just like a judges who ruled on Trump’s transport ban, Orrick homed in on a immeasurable discrepancies between what supervision lawyers fortifying a refuge cities sequence argued in justice and what administration officials pronounced about it in public.

The supervision attempted to make a box that a sequence doesn’t indeed do anything, during slightest not during a moment, since a administration has nonetheless to conclude what accurately a refuge city is. It was their proceed of convincing a decider to toss out a lawsuit on a drift that no city or county has nonetheless suffered any harm.

But in public, administration officials boasted about how a sequence would force refuge cities to their knees. The sequence described in justice as radically an dull bombard was portrayed in news conferences and radio interviews as a absolute apparatus to strengthen a open from dangerous undocumented immigrants being safeguarded by careless cities and counties.

It was that opening that uneasy Orrick.

In his ruling, a decider forked to a Feb talk between Trump and former Fox News horde Bill O’Reilly, in that Trump called a sequence “a weapon” to use opposite cities that attempted to challenge his immigration policies.

“I don’t wish to defund anybody. we wish to give them a income they need to scrupulously work as a city or a state,” Trump said in a interview. “If they’re going to have refuge cities, we might have to do that. Certainly that would be a weapon.”

The decider also cited news conferences in that Attorney General Jeff Sessions threatened to “claw behind any funds” awarded to a city that disregarded a order.

And a decider brought adult remarks by White House press secretary Sean Spicer, who pronounced in no capricious terms that “counties and other institutions that sojourn refuge cities don’t get sovereign supervision funding.”

On tip of that, a decider said, Trump and Sessions had regularly reason adult San Francisco as an instance of a ostensible dangers refuge cities poise to ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

It was some-more than adequate to uncover a vigilant of Trump’s order, Orrick wrote.

But supervision lawyers sang an wholly opposite tune.

According to Orrick, a supervision contended that a sequence was merely an instance of Trump using a “bully pulpit” to “highlight a altered proceed to immigration enforcement” — in essence, something most some-more soft than what Trump and association had described.

The justification was mislaid on a judge, who ridiculed a government’s position as “schizophrenic.”

“If there was doubt about a range of a Order, a President and Attorney General have erased it with their open comments,” Orrick wrote.

“Is a Order merely a controversial device,” he added, “or a ‘weapon’ to defund a Counties and those who have implemented a opposite law coercion plan than a Government now believes is desirable?”

The statute continued: “The statements of a President, his press secretary and a Attorney General confute the Government’s justification in a lecture that a Order does not change a law. They have regularly indicated an vigilant to defund refuge jurisdictions in correspondence with a Executive Order.”

If all that sounds familiar, it’s since other sovereign judges reached identical conclusions about a administration’s credit in lawsuits severe Trump’s transport ban.

In March, judges in Hawaii and Maryland issued rulings that temporarily halted tools of a executive order, that seeks to bar new visas for people from 6 Muslim-majority countries. In both cases, judges found that what supervision lawyers pronounced in justice didn’t line adult with remarks from Trump and some of his closest advisers, who had formerly called for a “Muslim ban.” The administration’s intent was obvious, a judges said.

“Plainly-worded” statements by Trump and his surrogates “betrayed a Executive Order’s settled physical purpose,” one decider wrote, regulating denunciation strikingly identical to Orrick’s.

As prolonged as a administration continues to emanate extended executive orders, it should design to have statements by a tip officials to come adult in court, pronounced Jayashri Srikantiah, an immigration law highbrow during Stanford.

“It’s tough to suppose not saying some-more of these kinds of authorised challenges,” she said. “The boss is a boss and a profession ubiquitous is a profession general, and we have to take severely what they contend about an executive sequence with such unconditional implications.”

The Trump administration has vowed to quarrel rulings in a transport anathema and refuge cities cases all a proceed to a Supreme Court, if necessary.

In a matter Tuesday, it called Orrick’s preference “one some-more instance of gross overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” The statute puts a sequence on reason while a decider weighs a full justification in a case.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus pronounced a government’s lawyers were reviewing their options.

“It’s a 9th Circuit going bananas,” he told reporters Tuesday. “The thought that an group can’t put in some reasonable limitation on how some of these monies are spent is going to be overturned eventually, and we’ll win during a Supreme Court turn during some point.”

More from Morning Mix

With self-deprecation on menu for presidents during correspondents’ dinner, it’s no consternation Trump is skipping it

More lawsuits directed during Fox News — this time for competition discrimination


Do you have an unusual story to tell? E-mail