Judge: DOJ must give money to law-breaking city

Thursday, June 7, 2018
Chad Groening (OneNewsNow.com)

gavel with U.S. flagIt was frustrating to watch a federal judge rule in favor of Philadelphia's sanctuary city policy instead of the rule of law, says a conservative activist.

U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson has ruled in favor of the City of Philadelphia after it sued the federal government for withholding grant funds in response to the city's harboring of illegal aliens.

Like other Democrat-led cities, Philadelphia has announced it is a "sanctuary city" that will defy federal immigration laws, thus setting up another city creating a legal stand-off with the U.S. Justice Department.

Diane Gramley, president of the American Family Association of Pennsylvania, says the DOJ was threatening to withhold $1.5 million in grant funds to a city that changed its cooperation to demand a warrant.

Gramley, Diane (AFA of Pennsylvania)The current federal requirements give ICE agents access to jails to interview suspected illegal aliens and require local authorities to give ICE advance notice if those inmates are set to be released according to The Associated Press

"The judge wrote that it violates statutory and constitutional law," Gramley says. "I'm not sure which constitution he's reading but I believe it's written in the U.S. Constitution that part of the President's job is to defend the country."

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has vocally warned cities and counties they will be punished if they that side with illegal aliens over federal immigration agents and current federal laws. Rulings such as Baylson's, however, are helping those cities defy the DOJ and yet receive federal dollars. 

In some states such as California, where a controversial state law literally prohibits cooperation, some local jurisdictions are vowing to ignore a state law that is itself ignoring federal immigration law. California state officials, ironically, have vowed to punish those cities that are cooperating with Sessions and the DOJ. 

Gramley suggests the issue needs to go to before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"It's troubling to think it has to go there," she says, "when to most Americans it's written in plain English that the President has the right to protect our borders."


We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details
SCOTUS confirms the right to pray

U.S. Supreme Court w/ flagJune brought plenty of big surprises from the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), with a major one being the reversal of a case involving prayer.