Embedded Obama Judge Blocks President Trump’s Defunding of Sanctuary City Grants

This is what a wholly corrupt judge looks like.

A federal judge in San Francisco has blocked a Trump administration order to withhold funding from communities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities.

He’s an Obama embed. These Obama judges don’t do anything according to the law. It’s just politics and that is corrupt.

This one judge in California is trying to tell the President of the United States that he is not allowed to execute an executive order attempting to force sanctuary cities/towns to obey immigration law through defunding.

President Trump should have the mayors and police chiefs arrested instead.

The coastal regions of the country want to rule.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick is a big Obama bundler, having solicited $200,000 in donations for him, and donating another $30,800 to committees supporting him. In 2012, he was appointed to the U.S. District Court as an Obama embed as a reward.

Orrick issued the temporary ruling Tuesday in a lawsuit over the executive order targeting sanctuary cities. The decision will stay in place while the lawsuit moves through court.

The Republican president’s administration and two California governments that sued over the order disagreed about its scope.

San Francisco and Santa Clara County argued that it threatened billions of dollars in federal funding.

But an attorney for the Justice Department, Chad Readler, said at a recent court hearing that it applied to a limited set of grants.

Readler said less than $1 million was at stake nationally and possibly no San Francisco funding.

The ruling in the case of the County of Santa Clara v. Trump and in the related matter of City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, Santa Clara and San Francisco argue that the Trump administration’s threat to withhold federal funding from sanctuary cities violates multiple constitutional provisions, including the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the 10th Amendment.

The sanctuary county and city asked the order be put on hold.

“To succeed in their motions,” Judge Orrick wrote today, “the Counties must show that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor. The Counties have met this burden.” The Trump administration is now blocked from enforcing the executive order anywhere in the country while the constitutional challenges move forward.

Reason.com says there is precedent for this. For one thing, they write that “the Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” It’s also against the law to force states to use funding to coerce a state into doing the bidding of the feds.

Then why was Obama allowed to do that continuously? His Furthering Fair Housing Act among so many others were to coerce the states using funding. He certainly did it with Obamacare.

Sanctuary cities/counties/towns are also violating federal immigration law. Does that count? It’s not simple regulations, it’s law, passed by Congress.

Every person who suffers because of these lawbreakers needs to be held to account

One of Obama’s legacy achievements is his ability to corrupt every agency of government as well as the judiciary. They all serve his interests and his agenda, not that of the American people.

Orrick is the same corrupt judge who issued a restraining order against the videos compiled by the pro-life investigative group, The Center for Medical Progress.  Laughingly he said he was concerned about the safety of the National Abortion Federation leaders. Coincidentally, the judge’s wife is a pro-abortion activist.



  1. Reason doesn’t sound very ‘rational’. How was the 55 mph speed limit accomplished across the country, Or the alcohol level enacted.

    These were among the many that Congress used Federal funds to force states to do it’s will.

    I believe the Supreme Court even ruled that if you want the money you have to follow the provisions so I don’t know where Reason gets their information.

  2. I’m just a Canadian, I am no expert on USA politics, but I have been following USA politics since 2001, and correct me ( anyone ) if I’m wrong, but I do not remember judges blocking Obama’s executive orders nor blocking Bush’s executive orders at least not every couple of weeks.

    Can someone explain to me why suddenly it is so easy for judges to act as if they were in charge of the USA and the President was just a desk clerk?

    What am I missing here?

    If I was Trump I would feel angry and partly humiliated or insulted that my authority is laughed at and mocked by any judge who feels like taunting me.

    I hope Trump is working on a big surprise for those judges and that they will regret having been so disrespectful, so bold.

    I hope wish and pray Trump can find a way to punish them severely.

    Why have a President at all if any judge can decide how to rule the nation???

    What am I missing here? anyone?

    • We have an independent judiciary in this country that is supposed to be non-partisan. Judge has every right to block the executive order if there’s cause that it is unconstitutional. Now we will see if that holds up as the cases go through the Circuit Court of Appeals, and possibly the Supreme Court.

      The president can’t punish the judges, nor should he be able to do so. If he couldn’t we wouldn’t have an independent judiciary. Yes things move slowly at times, just the way the framers intended. Changes should be debated and consensus should be built. Sadly that is not happening in the U.S. and hasn’t for some time.

  3. The president might want to pull an Andrew Jackson-type move and tell the partisan judge who ruled against him to try and come get the money Trump is holding back.

Comments are closed.