Sanctuary cities that harbor criminals and terrorists from foreign lands no longer have to worry about defunding. A judge has blocked President Trump’s executive order that would have blocked funding for sanctuary cities.
Apparently, it would be limiting [illegal] immigration cooperation.
The Story
U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued the injunction sought by San Francisco and more than a dozen other municipalities, which limits cooperation with federal immigration efforts.
Orrick wrote that defendants are prohibited “from directly or indirectly taking any action to withhold, freeze, or condition federal funds,” and the administration must provide written notice of its order to all federal departments and agencies by Monday.
At a hearing on Wednesday, Justice Department lawyers argued that it was too early for the judge to grant an injunction, as the government had not taken any action to withhold specific amounts or outline conditions for particular grants.
But Orrick, who President Barack Obama nominated, said this was essentially what government lawyers argued during Trump’s first term when the Republican issued a similar order.
“Their well-founded fear of enforcement is even stronger than it was in 2017,” Orrick wrote, citing the executive orders as well as directives from Bondi, other federal agencies, and Justice Department lawsuits filed against Chicago and New York.
Opinion
So far, open borders are fine, harboring alien criminals and terrorists who came illegally is not to be tampered with, and Democrats will do anything to keep their criminal and terrorist aliens in the United States because it gives them a permanent electoral majority in the near future. So what if they kill or rape citizens. That is acceptable to Democrats as long as they have all the power in perpetuity. Since they are the true authoritarians, Americans will rue the day they allowed this to happen.
What are our Supreme Court and Congress doing? NOTHING SO FAR.
This is the Democrat idea of democracy:
I don’t think Chuck Schumer was supposed to admit that about judges that are ruling against Trump. #news #doge #court #trump pic.twitter.com/j45LjauRxo
— Joe Pags Pagliarulo (@JoeTalkShow) March 21, 2025
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
A clip of Jordan on Fox Business says “we’ve got to let this play out in court“. “This administration is committed to doing what they told the American people they were going to do...” No help from YOU, Jordan. What a worthless POS. You can bet the Democrats would be holding countless hearings with subpoenas flying if their policies were being thwarted as much. We would be seeing a considerable amount of energy by them but Republicans are the low-energy Party.
He’s all talk.
Now its crystal clear the judges have been politically weaponized, Congress needs to get off their butts with emergency legislation to fix it.
A corrupt judiciary means the innocent have no protection from criminals (even more so where guns are effectively banned. Judge who rule against a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution are traitors.
Why doesn’t SCOTUS just rule it is illegal to vote Conservative in elections.
I assume your point is that we no longer live under constitutional protections, and there is much evidence to support such a contention.
In 2028 after democrats get back in the White House they will find a way of doing that, or something close to it.
I wish I was only kidding.
Democrats don’t see the need for elections.
Considering other countries have denied parties and individuals, even Israel, for the sake of democracy, District Courts and SCOTUS have effectively been doing the same here. What’s the point of having a President when all court levels have abridged his efforts to “faithfully execute the laws”.
Their idea of democracy is authoritarianism. Even when we win, we lose.