User:Oceanflynn/sandbox/Executive Order 13768

Executive Order 13768 also known as Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, was the fourth Executive Order signed by President Donald Trump which will lead to increased deportations. it focuses on deporting undocumented residents.

Context
On January 25, Trump signed the executive order, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States", to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the Attorney General and their departments and agencies to increase the enforcement of immigration laws which included the hiring of 10,000 additional immigration officers and 5,000 new Border Patrol agents. There are approximately 11 million undocumented immigrants living in the United States. Between 2009 and 2015 "record" 2.5 million undocumented residents were repatriated under the Obama administration.

Sanctuary cities
His order requires the cooperation of state and local authorities. The order states "sanctuary jurisdictions" including "sanctuary cities" who refuse to comply will not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary". Trump announced he intended to "cut off federal grant money to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with ICE in enforcing deportations".

Some officials claim that the "U.S. Constitution bars the federal government from commandeering state officials or using federal funds to "coerce" states into doing the bidding of Washington." Mayors of New York, Boston, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle have expressed concerns about the Order and do not want to "change the way their cities treat immigrants."

First arrest under EO 13768
On February 8, 2017 Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested 35-year-old Guadalupe García de Rayos, when she attended her required annual review at the ICE office in Phoenix, and "began procedures" to send de Rayos back to Mexico. She had left Mexico 21 years ago, worked in the United States and raised her family there. Police officers in helmets surrounding her, met protestors, including her family members. They were also arrested. Because of a 2008 charge of using a fake Social Security number to get a job at a water park, she was required to have the annual ICE review and she showed up voluntarily every year.

Attorney General Justice Department
BBC cited the newly-confirmed AG Jeff Sessions, "We need to end this lawlessness that threatens the public safety, pulls down the wages of working Americans."

Legal Challenges
It is is the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. San Francisco, California, is one city challenging the order.

Background
During his campaign, Trump proposed the mass deportation of illegal immigrants as part of his immigration policy. On August 31, 2016 Trump laid out a 10-step plan as part of his immigration policy where he reiterated that all illegal immigrants are "subject to deportation" with priority given to illegal immigrants who have committed significant crimes and those who have overstayed visas. He noted that all those seeking legalization would have to go home and re-enter the country legally.

Legal bases for the challenges
The challenges are based largely on the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the basis on which the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justin Antonin Scalia struck down a law in Printz v. United States (1997), held that the Constitution barred the U.S. government from engaging in "federal commandeering of state governments." While an emphasis on the Tenth Amendment has historically been championed by conservative jurists, the states and local governments challenging the executive order in this case reflect the amendment's use by liberals.

A federal statute involved in the cases is section 1373 of title 8 of the United States Code. That section provides 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," and makes jursidictions with such restrictions ineligible to receive federal grants, "except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary."

Legal scholar Ilya Somin, writing in the Washington Post's The Volokh Conspiracy, wrote:

"There are two serious constitutional problems with conditioning federal grants to sanctuary cities on compliance with Section 1373. First, longstanding Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are "unambiguously" stated in the text of the law "so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds." Few if any federal grants to sanctuary cities are explicitly conditioned on compliance with Section 1373. Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.

Even aside from Trump’s dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not 'commandeer' state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment."

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump
City and County of San Francisco v. Trump or San Francisco v. Trump, No. 3:17-cv-00485 (N.D.Cal. 2017), currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, challenges Executive Order 13768 on the grounds it violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

On January 31, 2017 the City and County of San Francisco filed a civil action challenging the executive order on the grounds that it violates the 10th Amendment of the United States Constitution with regard to State Sovereignty. San Francisco sued the Trump administration over the executive order requiring the federal government to withhold money from so-called sanctuary cities that protect undocumented immigrants from federal prosecution. The lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California alleges that Trump's order violates the Tenth Amendment, which states that powers not explicitly given to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved for the states.

The civil suit alleges three causes of action (1) Declaratory Relief – San Francisco complies with, (2) 10th Amendment – (a) is unconstitutional, and (3) 10th Amendment – Executive Order Section 9(A) enforcement directive is unconstitutional. The suit seeks a Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief holding that, (1) (a) is unconstitutional and invalid on its face; (2) Enjoin Defendants from enforcing Section 1373(a) or using it as a condition for receiving federal funds; (3) Declare that Section (a) is invalid as applied to state and local Sanctuary City laws, (4) Enjoin Defendants from enforcing Section 1373(a) against jurisdictions that enact Sanctuary City laws for legitimate local purposes; (5) Declare that San Francisco complies with Section ; (6) Enjoin Defendants from designating San Francisco as a jurisdiction that fails to comply with Section ; (7) Enjoin unconstitutional applications of the Enforcement Directive in Executive Order Section 9(a).

Unlike other suits brought in United States district courts across the United States challenging Executive Order 13769, this suit is the first one to challenge Executive Order 13768 on the basis of the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

City of Chelsea v. Trump
On February 8, 2017, the cities of Chelsea, Massachusetts and Lawrence, Massachusetts filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Boston, challenging the validity of the executive order. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice and the law firm Goodwin Procter are representing the cities pro bono in the suit.

The civil suit alleges eight causes of action: (1) declaratory relief that the City of Chelsea complies with ; (2) declaratory relief that the City of Lawrence complies with ; (3) the Section 9(A) of the executive order (the "enforcement directive") is unconstitutionally coercive under the Tenth Amendment; (4) the executive order is facially unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment; (5) the executive order is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment as applied to plaintiff cities, (6) (a) is unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment; (7) the executive order violates the separation of powers recognized by the United States Constitution, and (8) the executive order as unconstitutionally vague in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.