Were We Wrong About John Fetterman?
CNN Grilled UNRWA's Spokesperson Over New Terrorism Allegations. It Did Not Go Well.
Democrats Embrace Mental Illness in the Name of Diversity
The NY Times Blames You for Shoplifting
Vivek Ramaswamy Gets FBI Weaponization Very Wrong…Again
Kilmeade's Book on Booker T. Washington and Teddy Roosevelt Is Excellent
A Disappointing Non-Debate
Green Groups Are No Longer Promoting a Cleaner Environment
Arizona, the Republican Party, and Its Discontents
Kamala Harris Talks Climate As Houthis Attack US Navy Vessel
Dear 'Legacy Media,' the Calls of Authoritarianism are Coming from Inside the (White)...
The World Is Waking Up to the Consequences of Mass Migration. Will America?
Fact: Enlisted Troops Make Great Officers
Legal Hunting Reduces Deer Collisions and Should Be Encouraged
American Thought Control Through Coercion

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. 


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.


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


Trending on Townhall Videos