Is This the Cringiest Kamala Harris Interview?
OnlyFans Star Claims Biden Administration Paid Her to Spread Propaganda
What Triggered Nancy Pelosi's Meltdown on MSNBC Yesterday
It's Time to Brutally Put Down These Pro-Hamas Punks on College Campuses
The Left Wants to Play Stupid Games
Behind The Scenes: FBI Surveillance And The Truth About Protest Monitoring
The Media Ignored the Anti-Biden Protest Votes Among Pennsylvania Democrats
Turkey Cannot Be a Mediator in the Gaza War
Joe Biden Says There Are Very Fine People on Both Sides of the...
Oversight Chair James Comer Is Right to Challenge Biden’s Bureaucratic Hiring Spree
Left-Wing Activists Are Controlling the Biden Administration
I've Never Needed to Perform an Abortion to Save a Woman's Life
Joe Biden’s Plot to Halt Innovation
Another Ivy League Says They're Suspending Pro-Hamas Students
The White House Is Sticking With This Narrative on Border Security
Tipsheet

Guess What The Ninth Circuit Had To Say About Sanctuary Cities

AP Photo/Marco Ugarte

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday upheld a lower court decision that ruled said sanctuary cities do not conflict with federal immigration laws. The decision comes after the Trump administration challenged multiple aspects of California's sanctuary city designation, which protects illegal aliens from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. 

Advertisement

From the Times of San Diego:

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Senate Bill 54, otherwise known as the California Values Act, overriding the federal government’s assertion that it violates the Constitution’s supremacy clause that  states federal law preempts state law when the two are at odds.

The court also upheld two other laws named in the suit, AB 103 and AB 450, which allow the state attorney general to limit expansion of immigration detention facilities and require employers within the state to tell workers when their citizenship may be inspected by federal officials, respectively.

"SB 54 may well frustrate the federal government's immigration enforcement efforts," the court said. "However, whatever the wisdom of the underlying policy adopted by California, that frustration is permissible, because California has the right, pursuant to the anticommandeering rule, to refrain from assisting with federal efforts."

Those who champion California's refusal to cooperate with ICE were happy with the decision.

“This lawsuit against California was an affront to our state’s efforts to strengthen public safety for all while protecting families from the president’s abusive and overreaching deportation force,” San Diego Immigrant Rights Consortium Chair Lilian Serrano told the Times of San Diego.

Advertisement

When the lower court ruled in the state's favor, California's Democratic leaders made it known they refused to cooperate with ICE. 

"CA will not be complicit in the Trump Administration's attack on immigrations, and we won't back down in defending our people and our values," California's former Gov. Jerry Brown (D) said in a statement. "This Administration has intentionally separated families at the border, confined immigrant children to jail cells and blocked every attempt to shine a light on conditions at federal immigration detention facilities. Today's ruling is a victory for our state and a defeat for the Trump Administration's war on our diverse communities."

Here's the full document:

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement