US Trump’s funding threats to SF over sanctuary laws meet chilly response in court

© Provided by Hearst Communications, Inc FILE - In this Feb. 8, 2017, a woman crosses the street outside of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. President Donald Trump's comments about so-called "sanctuary cities" were scrutinized at the federal appeals court hearing on Wednesday, April 11, 2018, to determine whether the president's executive order threatening to cut funding from states and cities that limit cooperation with U.S. immigration authorities is legal. (AP Photo/Jeff Chiu, file)

Courts throughout the nation are considering President Trump’s efforts to compel unwilling cities and states to help carry out his hard-line immigration policies. But his most far-reaching decree, a January 2017 order to cut off federal funds to San Francisco and other sanctuary cities, received an apparently chilly reception from a federal appeals court Wednesday.

Trump Wants to Reshape the Courts. A Liberal Judge Unwittingly Helped Him.

The death of Judge Stephen Reinhardt, combined with other vacancies, gives President Trump a chance to remake a court that has bedeviled him.WASHINGTON — In the spring of 2014, a friend tried to nudge Judge Stephen Reinhardt, then an 83-year-old liberal stalwart on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, into stepping aside from full-time duties so President Barack Obama could nominate a successor.

Trump has long threatened to withhold federal funding from California over its allowance of sanctuary cities, which prevent local law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration authorities, previously calling the state "out of control."

The Trump administration suffered an earlier defeat in the courts when two federal judges The judge cited comments from Trump calling the order “a weapon” to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his immigration policies. There is no clear definition of " sanctuary city" in federal law , but Justice

Trump issued the executive order five days after taking office, telling Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the Department of Homeland Security to make sure that “sanctuary jurisdictions” are “not eligible to receive” any federal grants.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick III of San Francisco issued a nationwide injunction blocking the order in April 2017. Attorneys in Sessions’ office had argued that Trump was referring only to a few federal grants, but Orrick said the president’s words, and his later statement on Fox News that a funding cutoff would be “a weapon” to force a change in sanctuary policies, showed that he was threatening local governments with losses of huge sums that he had no legal authority to withdraw.

Michael Cohen: Trump’s fix-it guy and FBI raid subject, explained

Cohen is much more than just Trump’s lawyer. Here’s why the FBI’s raid of him is so consequential.Michael Cohen — Donald Trump’s longtime lawyer and business associate, who the FBI raided and seized documents from on Monday — doesn’t mince words.“I’m the guy who protects the president and the family. I’m the guy who would take a bullet for the president.”“If somebody does something Mr Trump doesn’t like, I do everything in my power to resolve it to Mr Trump’s benefit. If you do something wrong, I’m going to come at you, grab you by the neck, and I’m not going to let you go until I’m finished.

Cali. suing Trump administration over sanctuary city funding . State' s attorney general argues policy is unconstitutional. The showdown over so-called sanctuary cities has been heating up in recent months as some local governments have refused to cooperate with federal immigration authorities

Maricopa County Superior Court : In Trump v. Hobbs, the Trump campaign claimed that using sharpies to fill in mail-in ballots caused First Judicial District Court , Carson City: In Law v. Whitmer, Trump ' s six electors claim irregularities, including the improper use of scanning machines to verify signatures.

The federal government funds a wide range of state and local programs, including schools, transportation, health care and social services. San Francisco receives about $2 billion a year in federal aid, one-fifth of its overall budget, and Santa Clara County, the other plaintiff in the suit against the Trump administration, receives $1.7 billion, more than one-third of its revenue.

On Wednesday, a high-ranking Justice Department lawyer, Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler, told the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco that Trump hadn’t made any threats or withdrawn any funding and had merely directed Sessions to carry out the law. Members of the three-judge panel seemed skeptical.

Chief Judge Sidney Thomas said Trump had made statements about withholding money from sanctuary cities, and the actions he took threatened their funding. Thomas also said the Trump administration appeared to be claiming authority that goes beyond federal law by seeking to require cities and counties to cooperate with immigration officers or lose their funding.

Federal appeals court considers 'sanctuary city' case

A lawyer for the U.S. government asked a federal appeals court in San Francisco on Wednesday to overturn a nationwide injunction blocking enforcement of President Donald Trump's executive order against so-called sanctuary cities.The executive order, which Trump issued five days after taking office, said local governments that refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities were "not eligible for federal grants.

A US Appeals court ruled Wednesday that President Trump ’ s executive order threatening to withholding funding from sanctuary cities that refuse to cooperate with immigration officials is ‘unconstitutional.’

The Trump campaign has filed two lawsuits in federal court over ballot counting and voting deadlines in Pennsylvania, threatening to take the election to the As a law professor who's authored a book on election reform, I rate success in Trump ' s efforts to wrench back Biden's lead through litigation as a

If Orrick’s interpretation of Trump’s order was accurate, Thomas asked Readler, “would you agree that the executive order was unconstitutional?”

Perhaps, Readler replied, but Trump’s order was actually much narrower and applied only to specific Justice Department and Homeland Security grants.

In that case, Thomas asked, why does the administration object to an injunction against withdrawing other categories of federal funding?

Judge Ronald Gould asked Readler whether Sessions, at Trump’s directive, would have the constitutional authority to strip sanctuary cities of funding for education, health care and disaster relief. Readler said no such order had been issued.

Gould, however, also asked San Francisco’s lawyer, Deputy City Attorney Christine Van Aken, why the city and Santa Clara County needed a nationwide injunction to protect their funding. Van Aken replied that Trump’s order had nationwide impact.

The third panel member, Judge Ferdinand Fernandez, asked no questions during the 40-minute hearing.

More than 300 cities and counties nationwide have limited the cooperation their law enforcement agencies are allowed to extend to federal immigration officials seeking to detain and deport immigrants for crimes or illegal entry.

Police shootings are also part of America’s gun problem

A new Vox analysis finds a correlation between levels of gun ownership and killings by police officers. When Sacramento, California, police officers on March 18 confronted Stephon Clark in his grandmother’s backyard, they appeared to believe that he was holding a gun. In the dark of night, they opened fire — shooting 20 rounds and hitting the 22-year-old eight times, mostly from the back, according to an autopsy commissioned by the family. It turned out, though, that the officers had made a huge mistake: What they thought was a firearm was actually a cellphone.This kind of situation isn’t new.

In a separate case before Orrick, the Trump administration is seeking to withdraw several million dollars from San Francisco and Santa Clara County for refusing to notify immigration officials of the planned release of undocumented immigrants in local custody. Orrick refused to dismiss the local governments’ case last month and has tentatively scheduled a trial for next January. A federal judge in Chicago has ruled in a similar case that no such advance notice immigration officials is required by federal law.

The Trump administration has also sued the state of California, in federal court in Sacramento, seeking to overturn state laws that limit local governments’ authority to cooperate with immigration agents or allow them access to local jails and prohibit employers from allowing federal agents to enter private workplaces without a judicial warrant.

At Wednesday’s hearing, lawyers for San Francisco and Santa Clara County urged the court to reject the administration’s attempt to interpret Trump’s order as merely a directive to the Justice Department to target a few federal grants.

San Francisco has had to set aside substantial funds as a hedge against the prospect of federal withdrawal, and “shouldn’t be required simply to trust the federal government on this continuing threat,” said Van Aken, the city’s lawyer.

Danielle Goldstein, a deputy Santa Clara County counsel, noted that Trump had commended the city of Miami for revoking its sanctuary policy because it feared the loss of federal funds.

Trump’s executive order, Goldstein said, forces her county to decide whether to follow its own policy or “risk financial ruin.”

Bob Egelko is a San Francisco Chronicle staff writer. Email: begelko@sfchronicle.com Twitter:@BobEgelko