[ April 19, 2024 ]
President Donald Trump isn’t taking kindly to the recent federal judge ruling against his sanctuary city policy that pulls tax dollars funds from those jurisdictions that refuse to abide border law.
In a series of tweets, he vented against the court for its “ridiculous” ruling and vowed to head to the Supreme Court for redress.
He tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the [travel] ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities — both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!”
Story continues below advertisement
First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings. See you in the Supreme Court!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017
And then this: “Out of our very big country, with many choices, does everyone notice that both the ‘ban’ case and now the ‘sanctuary’ case is brought in the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.”
…the Ninth Circuit, which has a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80%). They used to call this "judge shopping!" Messy system.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 26, 2017
The White House sent out a statement on the heels of the Judge William Orrick’s decision on sanctuary cities, that effectively halts the administration’s decision to strip federal funding.
It read:
“Today, the rule of law suffered another blow, as an unelected judge unilaterally rewrote immigration policy for our Nation. Federal law explicitly states that “a Federal, State or Local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.” 8 U.S.C. 1373(a). That means, according to Congress, a city that prohibits its officials from providing information to federal immigration authorities — a sanctuary city — is violating the law. Sanctuary cities, like San Francisco, block their jails from turning over criminal aliens to Federal authorities for deportation. These cities are engaged in the dangerous and unlawful nullification of Federal law in an attempt to erase our borders.
“Once again, a single district judge — this time in San Francisco — has ignored Federal immigration law to set a new immigration policy for the entire country. This decision occurred in the same sanctuary city that released the 5-time deported illegal immigrant who gunned down innocent Kate Steinle in her father’s arms. San Francisco, and cities like it, are putting the well-being of criminal aliens before the safety of our citizens, and those city officials who authored these policies have the blood of dead Americans on their hands. This San Francisco judge’s erroneous ruling is a gift to the criminal gang and cartel element in our country, empowering the worst kind of human trafficking and sex trafficking, and putting thousands of innocent lives at risk.
“This case is yet one more example of egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge. Today’s ruling undermines faith in our legal system and raises serious questions about circuit shopping. But we are confident we will ultimately prevail in the Supreme Court, just as we will prevail in our lawful efforts to impose immigration restrictions necessary to keep terrorists out of the United States.
“In the meantime, we will pursue all legal remedies to the sanctuary city threat that imperils our citizens, and continue our efforts to ramp up enforcement to remove the criminal and gang element from our country. Ultimately, this is a fight between sovereignty and open borders, between the rule of law and lawlessness, and between hardworking Americans and those who would undermine their safety and freedom.”
The Truth Must be Told
Your contribution supports independent journalism
Please take a moment to consider this. Now, more than ever, people are reading Geller Report for news they won't get anywhere else. But advertising revenues have all but disappeared. Google Adsense is the online advertising monopoly and they have banned us. Social media giants like Facebook and Twitter have blocked and shadow-banned our accounts. But we won't put up a paywall. Because never has the free world needed independent journalism more.
Everyone who reads our reporting knows the Geller Report covers the news the media won't. We cannot do our ground-breaking report without your support. We must continue to report on the global jihad and the left's war on freedom. Our readers’ contributions make that possible.
Geller Report's independent, investigative journalism takes a lot of time, money and hard work to produce. But we do it because we believe our work is critical in the fight for freedom and because it is your fight, too.
Please contribute here.
or
Make a monthly commitment to support The Geller Report – choose the option that suits you best.
Quick note: We cannot do this without your support. Fact. Our work is made possible by you and only you. We receive no grants, government handouts, or major funding.Tech giants are shutting us down. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense, Pinterest permanently banned us. Facebook, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here.
Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s essential NOW when informed decision making and opinion is essential to America's survival. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Fight the great fight.
Follow Pamela Geller on Gettr. I am there. click here.
Follow Pamela Geller on Trump's social media platform, Truth Social. It's open and free.
Remember, YOU make the work possible. If you can, please contribute to Geller Report.
Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spammy or unhelpful, click the - symbol under the comment to let us know. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.
If you would like to join the conversation, but don't have an account, you can sign up for one right here.
If you are having problems leaving a comment, it's likely because you are using an ad blocker, something that break ads, of course, but also breaks the comments section of our site. If you are using an ad blocker, and would like to share your thoughts, please disable your ad blocker. We look forward to seeing your comments below.
11 Comments
6 years ago
LOL … Yes, I’d like to see it in the Supreme Court. Although I’d be happier with 9 Rule of Law justices instead of 4 LWNJ Rubber Stamps, a flip flipper, and only 4 Rule of Law justices.
6 years ago
Reply to
Dan Knight
Yes – and even Roberts cannot be counted on to adhere to Constitutional decision-making.
6 years ago
Reply to
Mark Steiner
My last paycheck was $22500 for working 12 hours a week online.Start earning $97/hour by working online from your home for few hours each day with GOOGLE… Get regular payments on weekly basis… All you need is a computer, internet connection and a litte free time… Read more here
!wr208c:
➽➽
➽➽➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs208SmartNews/GetPaid$97/Hour… ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫:::!wr208u:…..
6 years ago
Let Trump take it SCOTUS. I suspect that Trump may be in for a surprise—possibly 8-1, based on the arguments before the court and the fact that Trump wanted to go beyond the scope of the grant in funds revocation.
6 years ago
Reply to
aemoreira1981
From what I understand, those judges do not stand a chance and have lost the majority of their cases that have been taken to the Supreme Court, overwhelmingly.
6 years ago
Taking this case through the court system as the left has chosen to do will teach them the very valuable lesson that what will make you laugh can also make you cry.
D
6 years ago
Go get ’em, Donald. YOU were elected President, not these Obama-appointed judges.
6 years ago
I hope President Trump invokes Article six of the Constitution on that judge. The judge could be facing some serious violation of law.
6 years ago
If the judge is unelected, why can’t Pres. Trump fire him and the others that were put in place by Obummer?
6 years ago
If these leftist/regressives on the 9th Circuit aren’t careful they will find out just how much power POTUS has ~over~ the judiciary at their level.
It is well within the authority of POTUS to remake Circuit Courts at his discretion.
In addition, there is already a plan that has been proposed for breaking up the 9th Circuit into two new Circuit Courts.
In private industry and most governmental departments, any group with a ~failure~ rate even half as high as that of the 9th would long since have been broken up and the employees [in this case the judges] discharged ~for cause~.
