CBS News reported Richmond, California to be the 4th city to join other Northern California cities in a lawsuit against President Trump over his efforts to crack down on sanctuary cities.
Their effort to join the anti-Trump movement spreading through California, however, was halted by a federal judge this week, as The Washington Examiner reported. According to the judge, the ruling was issued because Richmond “failed to allege an actual controversy,” needed to oppose the Executive Order.
Joseph Cotchett, the lawyer representing the City of Richmond in the lawsuit, says city officials filed the joint lawsuit claiming the Executive Order disrupts long standing policies established by the Richmond City Council in 1990. The policies, supposedly in the name of public safety and maintaining trust, state that police must require city officials’ approval before cooperating with federal immigration agents.
Cotchett said Richmond’s city officials also hoped the lawsuit would have helped them stand up “for all cities in California that will be subject to the crazy Executive Order.”
Responding to similar lawsuits, President Trump’s DOJ said the Executive Order shouldn’t be resisted as it doesn’t change or impose new law but “does nothing more than direct enforcement of pre-existing duties under federal law.”
It seems Judge William H. Orrick agrees, at least in the case of Richmond. In an official statement, he stated that not only was Richmond’s concern over the Executive Order unfounded, but the supposed conflict of safety concerns is “currently, purely academic.”
He noted that Richmond hasn’t been a very high priority target by immigration officials and hasn’t been negatively affected in any way by the rising crackdowns on unlawful immigration.
In the statement, he rebuked the concerns of the city as unfounded. “Despite having no real-world friction with ICE or the defendants over its policies, Richmond argued that it is likely to face enforcement under the Executive Order because it has been called a sanctuary city and because it has a large Latino population. Neither of those arguments is persuasive,” he ruled.
He continued to say that it’s unlikely the Executive Order targets Richmond because no one has labeled it as a sanctuary city, despite the city officials allegations. “Richmond asserts that is has been called a sanctuary city, but does not say by whom or in what context. This vague assertion that someone, somewhere, referred to Richmond as a sanctuary city is insufficient to demonstrate the federal government believes Richmond is a sanctuary city or is likely to enforce the executive order against it,” he wrote.
While a step in the right direction towards ending sanctuary city resistance, the overturned lawsuit in Richmond is but a small drop in an ocean of deeper resistance. NPR reports that Los Angeles city officials have been strong opponents of the Executive Order, claiming the order is “unconstitutionally imposing its will on our city.”
Attorney General Jeff Sessions says he doesn’t understand why sanctuary cities like Los Angeles are resisting an order that seeks to uphold established law and safeguard Americans. “Reversing sanctuary city policies is about more than just enforcing federal immigration law by detaining criminals here illegally – it’s about re-establishing a culture of law and order, where crimes are punished and people are deterred from committing them,” Sessions said.
Hopefully, further headway will be made to overturn liberals’ resistance to obeying the law and will remove unwanted criminals whose presence in America is illegal.