Fiery but Mostly Peaceful Riots Are the Language of the Unheard
This College Kid Had a Rather Nasty Reply for a Job Interview...and It...
Well, This Moment at the UFC Freedom 250 Event Is Going to Cause...
Karmelo Anthony Files an Appeal, but There's a Big Problem
Remember That Kidnapping Plot Against Gretchen Whitmer? One of Its Defendants Got Some...
Here’s Why Democrats Hate America
When We Don't Control All of the Moving Parts
Massie Exploits the USS Liberty
The Saga of Karmelo Anthony
Tulsi Gabbard Makes a Grand Exit
The Blue Texas Delusion Lives On Despite Decades of Democrat Failure
When Dawkins Met Claude, He Forgot About the Cell
The Right to Remain Silent Says Everything
Fake News Attacks Election Integrity Champion’s Chief of Staff for X Posts That...
The Libs Tried to Counter-Program the White House UFC Event and It Was...Interesting
Tipsheet

Guess What The Ninth Circuit Had To Say About Sanctuary Cities

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