WEBVTT - Trump Faces Another Sanctuary Cities Defeat (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.960
<v Speaker 1>It's President Trump's second setback in court on major immigration

0:00:04.120 --> 0:00:08.280
<v Speaker 1>policy initiatives. Yesterday, at federal court in San Francisco blocked

0:00:08.280 --> 0:00:12.200
<v Speaker 1>a Trump order to withhold funding to sanctuary cities. Judge

0:00:12.240 --> 0:00:15.800
<v Speaker 1>William Rick agreed with San Francisco and Santa Clara County

0:00:15.880 --> 0:00:20.159
<v Speaker 1>that the president's January order violated the Constitution's fifth and

0:00:20.239 --> 0:00:23.800
<v Speaker 1>tenth Amendments and that Trump was attempting to wield powers

0:00:23.840 --> 0:00:28.319
<v Speaker 1>exclusive to Congress. San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:32.240
<v Speaker 1>Trump was selling fear. The President sought to bully local

0:00:32.280 --> 0:00:37.199
<v Speaker 1>governments with an unconstitutional executive order threatening all of their funding.

0:00:37.600 --> 0:00:40.199
<v Speaker 1>He sought to commerce local governments into holding people in

0:00:40.280 --> 0:00:44.960
<v Speaker 1>jail beyond their released release date. Trump responded to the

0:00:45.080 --> 0:00:48.400
<v Speaker 1>order as he has before, by criticizing the judge. This morning,

0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:51.680
<v Speaker 1>he tweeted, first the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban,

0:00:51.800 --> 0:00:56.360
<v Speaker 1>and now it hits again on sanctuary cities. Both ridiculous rulings.

0:00:56.520 --> 0:00:59.800
<v Speaker 1>See you in the Supreme Court. Joining us are Dan's

0:01:00.000 --> 0:01:03.680
<v Speaker 1>I'm President of the Federation for American Immigration Reform and

0:01:03.800 --> 0:01:08.280
<v Speaker 1>Joseph Hollenstein of Council at Landau has Simon and Troy

0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:13.760
<v Speaker 1>Joe explain the basis of judge or its ruling. Essentially,

0:01:13.760 --> 0:01:17.399
<v Speaker 1>what the judge was doing with the order was to

0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:21.679
<v Speaker 1>agree with the final position of the government that it

0:01:21.840 --> 0:01:26.080
<v Speaker 1>only changed when it came to make an oral argument

0:01:26.400 --> 0:01:30.320
<v Speaker 1>in his court, and that was that there is a

0:01:30.440 --> 0:01:36.080
<v Speaker 1>very limited number of funds that are directly connected to

0:01:36.760 --> 0:01:42.240
<v Speaker 1>federal immigration, um enforcement. And those are the funds that

0:01:43.120 --> 0:01:48.280
<v Speaker 1>the federal government can tell states or municipalities, well, we're

0:01:48.320 --> 0:01:52.920
<v Speaker 1>controlling these if you have particular immigration policies. All of

0:01:52.960 --> 0:01:56.440
<v Speaker 1>the rest and the and the implication from the and

0:01:56.800 --> 0:02:00.800
<v Speaker 1>the implication and plain language actually of the original executive

0:02:00.880 --> 0:02:07.880
<v Speaker 1>order was so broad that it effectively threatened federal funding throughout, um,

0:02:08.400 --> 0:02:12.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, a local government's budget. And um that's what

0:02:12.360 --> 0:02:15.040
<v Speaker 1>the judge struck down. He said, you can't you can't

0:02:15.080 --> 0:02:20.200
<v Speaker 1>connect an immigration policy to know how many police officers

0:02:20.280 --> 0:02:23.079
<v Speaker 1>federal government is going to help to fund or law

0:02:23.160 --> 0:02:28.600
<v Speaker 1>enforcement funding, or housing funding or education funding. And that's

0:02:28.760 --> 0:02:33.400
<v Speaker 1>really what the executive order was designed to do, was

0:02:33.480 --> 0:02:37.520
<v Speaker 1>to place all federal funding for local municipalities at risk.

0:02:38.280 --> 0:02:41.560
<v Speaker 1>And the judge said, simply can't do that. Now. The

0:02:41.639 --> 0:02:45.760
<v Speaker 1>federal government, the attorney at the oral argument with this

0:02:46.680 --> 0:02:50.280
<v Speaker 1>essentially backed away from that very very broad reading, which

0:02:50.400 --> 0:02:56.079
<v Speaker 1>was what was said throughout the entire um publication process

0:02:56.080 --> 0:03:02.440
<v Speaker 1>around this. This executive order in the Federal attorney said directly, yes,

0:03:02.680 --> 0:03:06.360
<v Speaker 1>this more limited version is is the is the version

0:03:06.400 --> 0:03:10.800
<v Speaker 1>that we need to uphold, and in effect that the

0:03:10.800 --> 0:03:13.799
<v Speaker 1>final ruling of the judge was to say, yeah, you know,

0:03:14.040 --> 0:03:17.120
<v Speaker 1>the most you can do is this limited ruling. Dan.

0:03:17.400 --> 0:03:22.399
<v Speaker 1>The you know, conservatives were very happy with the decision

0:03:22.600 --> 0:03:26.359
<v Speaker 1>in one of the Obamacare cases about the Medicaid expansion

0:03:26.360 --> 0:03:28.960
<v Speaker 1>that said that basically, the you know, the federal government

0:03:29.000 --> 0:03:31.640
<v Speaker 1>can't put a gun to the head over funding you know,

0:03:32.320 --> 0:03:35.000
<v Speaker 1>to the states and put limits on how coercive the

0:03:35.000 --> 0:03:38.600
<v Speaker 1>federal government could be about um conditions on federal funding.

0:03:38.960 --> 0:03:41.360
<v Speaker 1>And it feels a bit like the you know that

0:03:41.560 --> 0:03:43.720
<v Speaker 1>argument has come back to haunt the Trump administration in

0:03:43.720 --> 0:03:45.800
<v Speaker 1>this case. It's kind of ironic, isn't it the judges

0:03:46.160 --> 0:03:50.360
<v Speaker 1>relying on that argument to uh to prevent the Trump

0:03:50.360 --> 0:03:54.800
<v Speaker 1>administration from enforcing this order. Well, of course, it's very

0:03:54.800 --> 0:03:58.400
<v Speaker 1>frustrating to see the quickness with which these judges are

0:03:58.400 --> 0:04:01.480
<v Speaker 1>willing to issue these nationwide and junctions on the strength

0:04:01.520 --> 0:04:05.120
<v Speaker 1>of rhetoric or broad based language which d o J

0:04:05.280 --> 0:04:08.040
<v Speaker 1>attorneys a certain court is not the proper interpretation of

0:04:08.080 --> 0:04:11.200
<v Speaker 1>the executive order. And in this case, of course, there

0:04:11.200 --> 0:04:13.520
<v Speaker 1>really isn't even a case or controversy because d o

0:04:13.640 --> 0:04:17.560
<v Speaker 1>J hasn't actually tried to specifically enforce certainly not the

0:04:17.600 --> 0:04:20.479
<v Speaker 1>executive order in the way that the Santa Clara and

0:04:20.480 --> 0:04:22.400
<v Speaker 1>the other counties were asserting it was going to be.

0:04:22.839 --> 0:04:27.000
<v Speaker 1>But you know, remember Arizona wanted to try to assist

0:04:27.120 --> 0:04:31.279
<v Speaker 1>the federal government in its own enforcement in enforcing immigration laws,

0:04:31.360 --> 0:04:34.160
<v Speaker 1>and that was struck down by federal courts. And now

0:04:34.240 --> 0:04:38.040
<v Speaker 1>you have the federal government exercising a pleanering power, not

0:04:38.160 --> 0:04:43.080
<v Speaker 1>the commandeer state functions, you know, essential sovereign state functions,

0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:46.160
<v Speaker 1>but simply to assist the federal government in accordance with

0:04:46.200 --> 0:04:50.440
<v Speaker 1>federal law in turning over information about an aliens status

0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:53.760
<v Speaker 1>and in certain cases detaining aliens, putting them on civil

0:04:53.800 --> 0:04:57.680
<v Speaker 1>immigration holes until Immigration Customs enforcement can come and pick

0:04:57.760 --> 0:05:01.520
<v Speaker 1>them up. And you know, none of the you know,

0:05:02.080 --> 0:05:04.200
<v Speaker 1>to some extent, the judge just kind of got way

0:05:04.240 --> 0:05:06.480
<v Speaker 1>ahead of himself by saying, Okay, I'm going to enjoy

0:05:06.680 --> 0:05:10.000
<v Speaker 1>something that the Trump administration wasn't even planning to do,

0:05:10.560 --> 0:05:13.000
<v Speaker 1>and and it has enormous political implications because of the

0:05:13.000 --> 0:05:16.000
<v Speaker 1>way the media supported. The way that d o J

0:05:16.200 --> 0:05:19.600
<v Speaker 1>was planning to interpret this was quite narrowly tailored to

0:05:19.760 --> 0:05:23.120
<v Speaker 1>law enforcement related functions that are directly related to the

0:05:23.160 --> 0:05:26.880
<v Speaker 1>process of of holding aliens or verifying status. So you

0:05:26.920 --> 0:05:31.760
<v Speaker 1>can argue it's a draconian, drastically overbroad injunction, completely unsupported

0:05:31.800 --> 0:05:34.840
<v Speaker 1>by the record, and once once again an example of

0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:39.120
<v Speaker 1>political judicial legislating from the bench. We're talking about a

0:05:39.120 --> 0:05:42.719
<v Speaker 1>federal judge in San Francisco blocking a Trump order to

0:05:42.760 --> 0:05:47.720
<v Speaker 1>withhold funding to sanctuary cities yesterday. Also yesterday, a group

0:05:47.760 --> 0:05:51.080
<v Speaker 1>of mayors and major police officers met with A. G.

0:05:51.320 --> 0:05:54.520
<v Speaker 1>Jeff Sessions to talk about the very issue of what

0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:58.400
<v Speaker 1>is a sanctuary city, and they came out with different impressions,

0:05:58.720 --> 0:06:01.919
<v Speaker 1>although many said order would be limited to the law

0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:06.080
<v Speaker 1>on transmitting citizenship information, and that law is one which

0:06:06.080 --> 0:06:10.360
<v Speaker 1>the Obama administration said last July it would require compliance

0:06:10.440 --> 0:06:13.320
<v Speaker 1>with We've been speaking with Dan Stein, president of the

0:06:13.360 --> 0:06:18.160
<v Speaker 1>Federation for American Immigration Reform, and Joseph Hohenstein, a council

0:06:18.320 --> 0:06:24.599
<v Speaker 1>at Landau, Hess Simon and choi Dan. If this order

0:06:25.120 --> 0:06:28.719
<v Speaker 1>is just limited to the order that these cities have

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:34.039
<v Speaker 1>already been under obligation to follow under the Obama administration,

0:06:34.279 --> 0:06:35.920
<v Speaker 1>what was the point of making the order in the

0:06:35.960 --> 0:06:39.080
<v Speaker 1>first place. That's a really good question because of d

0:06:39.240 --> 0:06:42.120
<v Speaker 1>o J asserts Council asserts in court that this is

0:06:42.160 --> 0:06:44.680
<v Speaker 1>how they're going to enforce it, quite narrowly and consistent

0:06:44.760 --> 0:06:48.800
<v Speaker 1>with jurisdictions that the Obama administration said, we're not providing

0:06:48.839 --> 0:06:53.400
<v Speaker 1>information pursuing to federal law. That's a usc three. Then

0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:55.960
<v Speaker 1>what's the big noise? I mean, what's the big deal?

0:06:56.000 --> 0:06:59.920
<v Speaker 1>Why issue a nationwide injunction to stop the Trump administration

0:07:00.040 --> 0:07:02.400
<v Speaker 1>from doing what it wasn't going to do in the

0:07:02.440 --> 0:07:05.120
<v Speaker 1>first place. And you can't help but believe that there

0:07:05.160 --> 0:07:08.239
<v Speaker 1>was a political element where the judge judge or felt

0:07:08.240 --> 0:07:11.480
<v Speaker 1>that he could invoke a teentiment and constitutional claim, which

0:07:11.520 --> 0:07:14.640
<v Speaker 1>is really quite ridiculous when you think about it, involving

0:07:14.840 --> 0:07:18.080
<v Speaker 1>the provision of federal grants. When you have defendants who

0:07:18.120 --> 0:07:21.000
<v Speaker 1>are asserting, look, we're not trying to interfere with essential

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:24.280
<v Speaker 1>state functions. We simply want states to assist the federal

0:07:24.320 --> 0:07:28.320
<v Speaker 1>government in verifying an alien status consistent with federal law,

0:07:28.440 --> 0:07:31.600
<v Speaker 1>which has always been something that the supremacy clause under

0:07:31.640 --> 0:07:34.880
<v Speaker 1>federal law has entitled the federal government to do. Now

0:07:35.200 --> 0:07:37.200
<v Speaker 1>that could the judge did say, Congress could go in

0:07:37.240 --> 0:07:39.840
<v Speaker 1>and change the law. The Congress can certainly condition broader

0:07:39.840 --> 0:07:42.960
<v Speaker 1>grants and these narrow grants to a state's willingness to

0:07:43.000 --> 0:07:46.240
<v Speaker 1>assist in enforcing federal law. But the line on what

0:07:46.400 --> 0:07:49.440
<v Speaker 1>becomes commandeering and when you're coercing a state to say

0:07:49.520 --> 0:07:52.400
<v Speaker 1>detained aliens or actually go out and find them, you know,

0:07:52.440 --> 0:07:54.640
<v Speaker 1>it's it's a pretty bright one. But this case really

0:07:54.640 --> 0:07:59.520
<v Speaker 1>didn't address that. Joe, you know, would disagree on that. Yeah,

0:07:59.640 --> 0:08:02.040
<v Speaker 1>so that this department did say that there was you know,

0:08:02.200 --> 0:08:04.400
<v Speaker 1>this was a very narrow thing to really change the law.

0:08:04.400 --> 0:08:06.960
<v Speaker 1>It was really more of a bully pulpit kind of order.

0:08:07.640 --> 0:08:10.560
<v Speaker 1>And the judge found that that that's not the way

0:08:10.600 --> 0:08:13.240
<v Speaker 1>he read the order. Can you explain why did the

0:08:13.320 --> 0:08:17.200
<v Speaker 1>judge read the order more broadly than the Justice Department did? Well?

0:08:17.320 --> 0:08:22.040
<v Speaker 1>For two reasons. One, the order itself is written that broadly,

0:08:22.880 --> 0:08:26.720
<v Speaker 1>and there are specific sections of the order that place

0:08:27.400 --> 0:08:32.200
<v Speaker 1>any federal funds at risk. And second, contrary to the

0:08:32.200 --> 0:08:35.000
<v Speaker 1>position that was taken after the government was sued and

0:08:35.040 --> 0:08:39.320
<v Speaker 1>taken into court. Before they were taken into court, the

0:08:39.360 --> 0:08:43.600
<v Speaker 1>Attorney General and the president and the president's press secretary,

0:08:43.720 --> 0:08:47.360
<v Speaker 1>we're all talking about this is going to make sure

0:08:47.400 --> 0:08:51.359
<v Speaker 1>that we turned the financial screws, which is effectively commandeering

0:08:51.960 --> 0:08:58.080
<v Speaker 1>on the local um the local municipalities, and in in

0:08:58.120 --> 0:09:01.640
<v Speaker 1>this situation, that concept of the bully pulpit. To think

0:09:01.679 --> 0:09:04.920
<v Speaker 1>about the last president who really used the concept of

0:09:04.920 --> 0:09:09.440
<v Speaker 1>bully pulpit, you know, Teddy Roosevelt. Teddy Roosevelt's philosophy was

0:09:09.800 --> 0:09:14.959
<v Speaker 1>speak softly and carry a big stick. What this is

0:09:14.960 --> 0:09:20.679
<v Speaker 1>is speaking loudly but carrying a toothpick. Because what they

0:09:20.800 --> 0:09:23.840
<v Speaker 1>wanted to do when it was finally challenged, when the

0:09:23.880 --> 0:09:28.079
<v Speaker 1>bullies were finally challenged in court, what happened was they

0:09:28.120 --> 0:09:30.280
<v Speaker 1>backed off and is it all We didn't really mean it.

0:09:30.840 --> 0:09:34.680
<v Speaker 1>But that's not what that either the order says, and

0:09:34.720 --> 0:09:37.400
<v Speaker 1>it's not what they were saying before they were challenged.

0:09:37.960 --> 0:09:42.120
<v Speaker 1>And um, the politicization is not coming from the judge here,

0:09:42.679 --> 0:09:48.400
<v Speaker 1>it's coming from the administration itself that issues and sends

0:09:48.440 --> 0:09:53.920
<v Speaker 1>out orders like this that are written extremely poorly, very overbroadly,

0:09:54.520 --> 0:09:59.240
<v Speaker 1>and in ways that are designed to stoke concern and

0:09:59.280 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 1>worry and fear. It interrupts the planning process. For a

0:10:03.320 --> 0:10:09.000
<v Speaker 1>city like San Francisco that gets of its budget overall

0:10:09.320 --> 0:10:12.280
<v Speaker 1>for things like housing, things like police, and things like

0:10:12.360 --> 0:10:17.280
<v Speaker 1>its schools, all of that funding was at risk with

0:10:17.600 --> 0:10:20.640
<v Speaker 1>the way that the order is written and the way

0:10:20.880 --> 0:10:25.000
<v Speaker 1>that both the president and the president, his Attorney general

0:10:25.080 --> 0:10:27.280
<v Speaker 1>and his Press secretary, we're all saying they were going

0:10:27.320 --> 0:10:31.400
<v Speaker 1>to enforce this. Dan, do you Dan, do you agree

0:10:31.480 --> 0:10:35.520
<v Speaker 1>that President Trump made a great deal of the signing

0:10:35.600 --> 0:10:39.760
<v Speaker 1>of this order and it was televised and he said

0:10:39.800 --> 0:10:44.000
<v Speaker 1>this is going to help with immigration reform, And if

0:10:44.040 --> 0:10:46.520
<v Speaker 1>it's the same as what Obama was doing, why make

0:10:46.600 --> 0:10:49.839
<v Speaker 1>a big deal about it on his part? Well, again,

0:10:49.880 --> 0:10:53.360
<v Speaker 1>that they're you know, there are traditionally rules of construction

0:10:53.520 --> 0:10:56.520
<v Speaker 1>as well as rules regarding standing and rightness for when

0:10:56.520 --> 0:11:00.720
<v Speaker 1>a judge is actually supposed to decide whether the plaintiff

0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:03.480
<v Speaker 1>has injury in fact. And at this point, until you

0:11:03.520 --> 0:11:06.199
<v Speaker 1>actually see how the executive order is going to be enforced,

0:11:06.240 --> 0:11:09.920
<v Speaker 1>until General Sessions actually seeks to withdraw grant money or

0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:14.199
<v Speaker 1>condition spending and specifically seeks to enforce it, it's hard

0:11:14.240 --> 0:11:16.800
<v Speaker 1>to understand why the judge would have even proceeded to

0:11:16.840 --> 0:11:19.360
<v Speaker 1>try to interpret the executive order. And if you allow

0:11:19.440 --> 0:11:22.160
<v Speaker 1>the judge to start taking in to account again, we

0:11:22.200 --> 0:11:25.680
<v Speaker 1>see campaign statements and campaign rhetoric being used by judges

0:11:26.200 --> 0:11:28.920
<v Speaker 1>to go ahead and try to interpret executive orders. However

0:11:30.600 --> 0:11:34.240
<v Speaker 1>you know, imprecisely they may have been drafted. Well, there's

0:11:34.280 --> 0:11:37.000
<v Speaker 1>no end to the kind of pernicious political nature of

0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:40.880
<v Speaker 1>that kind of legal interpretation. Political campaigns are by definition

0:11:41.720 --> 0:11:46.760
<v Speaker 1>raucous uh, you know, loud, imprecise uh debates, and they're not.

0:11:47.080 --> 0:11:49.800
<v Speaker 1>They shouldn't take the place in a courtroom for precise

0:11:50.240 --> 0:11:53.600
<v Speaker 1>statutory construction. The rules of statutory construction as well as

0:11:53.679 --> 0:11:56.599
<v Speaker 1>article free standing. In this case, nobody had tried to

0:11:56.640 --> 0:12:00.080
<v Speaker 1>take any money specifically away from these jurisdictions yet, and

0:12:00.120 --> 0:12:03.160
<v Speaker 1>so even you know, these are preliminary junctions being issued

0:12:03.280 --> 0:12:05.679
<v Speaker 1>even before there's been a full briefing on the marriage.

0:12:06.000 --> 0:12:08.439
<v Speaker 1>I'm gonna have to stop you there, Dan, We're going

0:12:08.480 --> 0:12:11.520
<v Speaker 1>to continue with this conversation at some point. Again, I'm

0:12:11.559 --> 0:12:15.160
<v Speaker 1>sure that's Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American

0:12:15.160 --> 0:12:19.400
<v Speaker 1>Immigration Reform, and Joseph Hohenstein of Council at LANDAU has

0:12:19.600 --> 0:12:22.440
<v Speaker 1>Simon and Choi coming up. We are going to be

0:12:22.679 --> 0:12:25.839
<v Speaker 1>going live to the White House briefing on the tax plan,

0:12:26.520 --> 0:12:30.880
<v Speaker 1>and we're also going to be talking about the oversight

0:12:31.000 --> 0:12:34.960
<v Speaker 1>panel saying that President Donald Trump's former national security advisor,

0:12:35.040 --> 0:12:39.320
<v Speaker 1>Michael Flynn appeared to violate federal law. I'm June Grasso

0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:40.960
<v Speaker 1>with Michael Beast. This is Bloomberg