Close this search box.

Judge Rules for Philadelphia In Sanctuary City Dispute

The city of Philadelphia scored a major victory Wednesday, with a federal judge ruling in favor of its so-called “sanctuary city” status and delivering a major blow to the Trump administration.

The city sued after federal officials threatened to cut off about $1.5 million in federal grant funding for not sufficiently cooperating with immigration agencies.

In a 93-page memo, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson ruled that conditions the federal government placed on Philadelphia in order to receive funding earmarked to help buy kits to counteract opioid overdoses were “arbitrary and capricious.”

Federal officials had required the city to provide Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents access to prisons to interview suspects, for the city to notify agents when undocumented immigrants are to be released from prison and that the city would not be allowed to withhold information regarding a person’s citizenship status.

“The public statements of President Trump and Attorney General Sessions, asserting that immigrants commit more crimes than native-born citizens, are inaccurate as applied to Philadelphia, and do not justify the imposition of these three conditions,” Baylson wrote.

Mayor Jim Kenney — already warmed up from his Monday disagreement with the president over Trump’s decision to disinvite the Super Bowl Champion Philadelphia Eagles from the White House — broke out into song and dance over the court’s ruling.

And in January, Kenney’s office released an action guide outlining city’s attitude toward immigration and its legal requirements to cooperate with ICE and other agencies. The guide also contains resources for organizations needing volunteers to help immigrants and refugees, as well as legislative contacts to reach out to for constituents to ask for continued funding for sanctuary cities and support for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program.

The U.S. Department of Justice said Wednesday’s ruling puts cities at risk by protecting criminals and refusing to hold them accountable and deport them when necessary.

“The Justice Department continues to maintain that we exercised our authority, given by Congress, to attach conditions—designed to keep Americans safe—to public safety grants,” DOJ spokesman Devin O’Malley said in a statement. “We will continue to fight to carry out the Department’s commitment to the rule of law, protecting public safety and keeping criminal aliens off the streets.”

Included with the press statement was a list of seven undocumented immigrants in Philadelphia accused of crimes.

9 Responses

  1. Will be overturned and/or future grant-proposals will include this parameter as an accession criterion; note upcoming decision by SCOTUS regarding Travel Ban as one of the indicia of these trends under The Donald.

  2. If we can’t get compromise and comity on immigration – how will we ever figure out more pressing and serious issues like reining in the entitlements on autopilot (see yesterday’s report on Medicare) that could bankrupt us for good?

    With Donald Trump, instead of seriousness and thoughtfulness on an issue where we should come together and figure out a reasonable path (like focusing deportation efforts on violent criminals while offering some amnesty for most of these people fleeing really crazy situations) — we get constant propaganda and hatred and fear.

    Donald Trump (and Lou Barletta) are a special kind of poison that is intent on embarrassing America, betraying its values, and ceding it all to Russia and China.

  3. The immigration issue is swiftly becoming a political mess with children being taken from their parents who come to America. We are all immigrants in a sense because everyone reading this most likely had family come from another country. Philadelphia did the right thing challenging the Trump Administration treatment of immigrants. People should not be treated like they are subhuman because they are poor and seeking refuge in the U.S. Sure, let’s have a discussion on immigration but taking children from their parents is not the answer.

    1. Difference being legal and illegal. If you commit a crime knowingly, it’s not the government taking the children, but parents endangering them. This isn’t difficult to make the clear distinctions.

      1. What’s appalling is really the lack of ability of people like “appalling” to view these people as human beings. But for the grace of God you are not so desperate that you’d risk everything for a better life for your children.

    2. Taking children from their parents happens whenever a citizen or illegal immigrants commit a crime and are being held for trial and/or convicted of a crime. The Obama and former administrations did the same

      1. Are you suggesting that the crime committed is coming here illegally? The history of the world has seen this before; makes it no less evil this time around.

  • Reader Poll: Should President Joe Biden Step Aside?

    • Yes. He should step aside because of his age, declining ability to do the job. (45%)
    • No. He should not step aside. (39%)
    • Yes. He should step aside because he can't beat Donald Trump. (15%)

    Total Voters: 231

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen