A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the US Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants.

US District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president&#39;s order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order.

As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Sanctuary cities in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary city is not an official designation.

Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump&#39;s plan to withhold federal funds is unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit.

On Friday, the counties described the order as a &quot;weapon to cancel all funding to jurisdictions,&quot; said John Keker, an attorney representing Santa Clara County. 
 
&quot;All around the country, including here, people are having to deal with this right now,&quot; the attorney said.

Santa Clara County receives roughly $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 per cent of its total revenues. The county argued that every day it owed millions of dollars of federal funding, and its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order.

The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president&#39;s order, which would impact only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties.

The government also argued that there had been no enforcement action to date, and it was unclear what actions against the counties would entail.

Judge Orrick asked the government what was the purpose of an executive order, if it only impacted a small amount of county funding.

Attorneys for the government said the order had highlighted issues that the Trump Administration deeply cared about and a national policy priority.

To win a nationwide injunction, local governments must demonstrate a high level of harm, the Justice Department noted in court filings last month. 
 
(Reuters)

In January, Trump signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities

A California federal judge on Friday strongly questioned the US Justice Department over whether to suspend an order by President Donald Trump to withhold federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities for immigrants. US District Court Judge William Orrick III questioned the purpose of the president's order as he heard arguments from two large California counties and the Justice Department in San Francisco federal court. Both counties have asked for a nationwide preliminary injunction to the order. As part of a larger plan to transform how the United States deals with immigration and national security, Trump in January signed an order targeting cities and counties that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Sanctuary cities in general offer safe harbor to illegal immigrants and often do not use municipal funds or resources to advance the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Sanctuary city is not an official designation. Santa Clara County, which includes the city of San Jose and several smaller Silicon Valley communities, sued in February, saying Trump's plan to withhold federal funds is unconstitutional. San Francisco filed a similar lawsuit. On Friday, the counties described the order as a "weapon to cancel all funding to jurisdictions," said John Keker, an attorney representing Santa Clara County. "All around the country, including here, people are having to deal with this right now," the attorney said. Santa Clara County receives roughly $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds annually, about 35 per cent of its total revenues. The county argued that every day it owed millions of dollars of federal funding, and its budgetary planning process had been thrown into disarray by the order. The Justice Department said the counties had taken an overly broad interpretation of the president's order, which would impact only Justice Department and Department of Homeland Security funds, a fraction of the grant money received by the counties. The government also argued that there had been no enforcement action to date, and it was unclear what actions against the counties would entail. Judge Orrick asked the government what was the purpose of an executive order, if it only impacted a small amount of county funding. Attorneys for the government said the order had highlighted issues that the Trump Administration deeply cared about and a national policy priority. To win a nationwide injunction, local governments must demonstrate a high level of harm, the Justice Department noted in court filings last month. (Reuters)

California judge questions Trump's order to withhold funds for immigrant 'sanctuary cities '

The White House confirmed Sunday it is considering issuing a new order on immigration now that President Donald Trump&#39;s travel ban has been halted as it makes its way through the courts.

&quot;Right now we are considering and pursuing all options,&quot; presidential aide Stephen Miller told Fox television.&nbsp;

He said the next step would be either filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, defending the merits of the order in lower courts or issuing a new one.

&quot;The president&#39;s powers here are beyond question,&quot; said Miller, who is considered one of the driving forces behind Trump&#39;s first actions on immigration.

Miller insisted the president has the power to keep some people from entering the United States.

&quot;We are contemplating new and additional actions to ensure that immigration is not a vehicle for admitting people into our country that are hostile to its nation and its values,&quot; Miller said.

The order that Trump issued abruptly on January 27 halts resettlement of all refugees for 120 days and that of Syrian refugees indefinitely.

It also bars for 90 days the entry of nationals from seven mainly Muslim countries.

A federal judge in Seattle issued a stay against the order on February 3. Then a three-judge appeals panel in San Francisco voted unanimously last week against reinstating Trump&#39;s ban. Among other things, it rejected the argument that the president&#39;s actions in the area of immigration cannot be reviewed by the courts.

The Trump ban was supposed to be in place while the government comes up with a new system of so-called &quot;extreme vetting&quot; of people seeking entry visas. This could include checks on their social media accounts, according to John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security.

&quot;Our immigration system should not be a vehicle for admitting people who have anything but love in their hearts for this nation and this constitution,&quot; said Miller, who is 31.

&quot;It is a message that I want the world to hear today. This country will protect its borders. It will protect its people,&quot; Miller said.

The idea of the White House issuing a modified immigration order that would survive scrutiny in the courts does not convince Democrats, who from the outset have charged that Trump&#39;s order is simply anti-Muslim and plays into the hands of extremists.

&quot;It will be used as a recruitment for terrorist organizations. It will put Americans at greater risk traveling abroad,&quot; said Democratic Senator Ben Cardin. 
 
(AFP) 
&nbsp;

Trump's presidential aide said the next step would be either filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court or issuing a new order

The White House confirmed Sunday it is considering issuing a new order on immigration now that President Donald Trump's travel ban has been halted as it makes its way through the courts. "Right now we are considering and pursuing all options," presidential aide Stephen Miller told Fox television. He said the next step would be either filing an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, defending the merits of the order in lower courts or issuing a new one. "The president's powers here are beyond question," said Miller, who is considered one of the driving forces behind Trump's first actions on immigration. Miller insisted the president has the power to keep some people from entering the United States. "We are contemplating new and additional actions to ensure that immigration is not a vehicle for admitting people into our country that are hostile to its nation and its values," Miller said. The order that Trump issued abruptly on January 27 halts resettlement of all refugees for 120 days and that of Syrian refugees indefinitely. It also bars for 90 days the entry of nationals from seven mainly Muslim countries. A federal judge in Seattle issued a stay against the order on February 3. Then a three-judge appeals panel in San Francisco voted unanimously last week against reinstating Trump's ban. Among other things, it rejected the argument that the president's actions in the area of immigration cannot be reviewed by the courts. The Trump ban was supposed to be in place while the government comes up with a new system of so-called "extreme vetting" of people seeking entry visas. This could include checks on their social media accounts, according to John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security. "Our immigration system should not be a vehicle for admitting people who have anything but love in their hearts for this nation and this constitution," said Miller, who is 31. "It is a message that I want the world to hear today. This country will protect its borders. It will protect its people," Miller said. The idea of the White House issuing a modified immigration order that would survive scrutiny in the courts does not convince Democrats, who from the outset have charged that Trump's order is simply anti-Muslim and plays into the hands of extremists. "It will be used as a recruitment for terrorist organizations. It will put Americans at greater risk traveling abroad," said Democratic Senator Ben Cardin. (AFP)

White House considering new immigration order, says president's powers 'beyond question'

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US&nbsp;President Donald Trump&#39;s recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States.

The judge&#39;s order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately.

The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The Seattle judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration.

&quot;It&#39;s a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country,&quot; said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell.

The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump&#39;s executive order. Trump&#39;s administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labelled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs.

Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston on Friday declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from certain countries despite being barred by US&nbsp;President Donald Trump&#39;s recent executive order.

Also on Friday in Virginia, a federal judge ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban.

The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000.

US&nbsp;District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of &quot;all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States&quot;.

The state of Hawaii on Friday joined the challenge to the order, filing a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country.

The new Republican president&#39;s order signed on January 27 triggered chaos at US&nbsp;airports last weekend. Some travellers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country.

The order also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees.

On Friday the Department of Homeland Security issued additional clarification of the order, stating that there were no plans to extend it beyond the seven countries. The DHS also reiterated that the ban did not apply to permanent residents, or green card holders, and some others, such as those who have helped the US&nbsp;military.

In the Boston case, US&nbsp;District Judge Nathan Gorton denied the request, after expressing skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group&#39;s claim that Trump&#39;s order represented religious discrimination.

(Reuters)

The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately

A federal judge in Seattle on Friday granted a nationwide temporary restraining order blocking US President Donald Trump's recent action barring nationals from seven countries from entering the United States. The judge's order represents a major challenge to the Trump administration, which is expected to immediately appeal. The judge declined to stay the order, suggesting that travel restrictions could be lifted immediately. The challenge was brought by the state of Washington and later joined by the state of Minnesota. The Seattle judge ruled that the states have legal standing to sue, which could help Democratic attorneys general take on Trump in court on issues beyond immigration. "It's a wonderful day for the rule of law in this country," said Washington state solicitor general Noah Purcell. The decision came on a day that attorneys from four states were in courts challenging Trump's executive order. Trump's administration justified the action on national security grounds, but opponents labelled it an unconstitutional order targeting people based on religious beliefs. Earlier on Friday, a federal judge in Boston on Friday declined to extend a temporary restraining order that allowed some immigrants into the United States from certain countries despite being barred by US President Donald Trump's recent executive order. Also on Friday in Virginia, a federal judge ordered the White House to provide a list of all people stopped from entering the United States by the travel ban. The State Department said on Friday that fewer than 60,000 visas previously issued to citizens of Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen had been invalidated as a result of the order. That disclosure followed media reports that government lawyers were citing a figure of 100,000. US District Judge Leonie Brinkema in Alexandria, Virginia ordered the federal government to give the state a list by Thursday of "all persons who have been denied entry to or removed from the United States". The state of Hawaii on Friday joined the challenge to the order, filing a lawsuit alleging that the order is unconstitutional and asking the court to block the order across the country. The new Republican president's order signed on January 27 triggered chaos at US airports last weekend. Some travellers abroad were turned back from flights into the United States, crowds of hundreds of people packed into arrival areas to protest and legal objections were filed across the country. The order also temporarily stopped the entry of all refugees into the country and indefinitely halted the settlement of Syrian refugees. On Friday the Department of Homeland Security issued additional clarification of the order, stating that there were no plans to extend it beyond the seven countries. The DHS also reiterated that the ban did not apply to permanent residents, or green card holders, and some others, such as those who have helped the US military. In the Boston case, US District Judge Nathan Gorton denied the request, after expressing skepticism during oral arguments about a civil rights group's claim that Trump's order represented religious discrimination. (Reuters)

Federal judge in Seattle temporarily halts Trump's immigration order

The UN refugee agency today said it was &quot;alarmed&quot; by the consequences of US President Donald Trump&#39;s order barring refugee arrivals, describing those targeted as &quot;anxious, confused and heartbroken&quot;.

&quot;This week alone, over 800 refugees were set to make America their new home,&quot; the Geneva-based UNHCR said in a statement.

The order signed by Trump on Friday suspends arrivals by refugees in general for 120 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely.

&quot;UNHCR estimates that 20,000 refugees in precarious circumstances might have been resettled to the United States during the 120 days covered by the suspension,&quot; the statement added, basing that figure on averages over the last 15 years.

&quot;Refugees are anxious, confused and heartbroken at this suspension,&quot; it further said, describing UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi as &quot;deeply worried&quot; by the impact of Trump&#39;s move.

Refugees who qualify for resettlement to the US or other developed countries have typically endured extreme hardships and have no prospect of safely returning to their home countries.

The US president&#39;s widely-condemned executive order also bars entry for travellers from seven mainly Muslim countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days.

(AFP)

'This week alone, over 800 refugees were set to make America their new home,' the Geneva-based UNHCR said in a statement

The UN refugee agency today said it was "alarmed" by the consequences of US President Donald Trump's order barring refugee arrivals, describing those targeted as "anxious, confused and heartbroken". "This week alone, over 800 refugees were set to make America their new home," the Geneva-based UNHCR said in a statement. The order signed by Trump on Friday suspends arrivals by refugees in general for 120 days and Syrian refugees indefinitely. "UNHCR estimates that 20,000 refugees in precarious circumstances might have been resettled to the United States during the 120 days covered by the suspension," the statement added, basing that figure on averages over the last 15 years. "Refugees are anxious, confused and heartbroken at this suspension," it further said, describing UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi as "deeply worried" by the impact of Trump's move. Refugees who qualify for resettlement to the US or other developed countries have typically endured extreme hardships and have no prospect of safely returning to their home countries. The US president's widely-condemned executive order also bars entry for travellers from seven mainly Muslim countries -- Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen -- for 90 days. (AFP)

UN refugee body 'alarmed' by Trump's immigration order

An initial volley in a potential barrage of legal challenges to President Donald Trump&#39;s new restrictions on immigration came on Saturday on behalf of two Iraqis with ties to US&nbsp;security forces who were detained at New York&#39;s JFK Airport.

In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, the men are challenging the directive on constitutional grounds. The suit says their connections to the American forces made them targets in their home country and the pair had valid visas to enter the United States.

The lawsuit, which seeks to block Trump&#39;s order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers, highlights some of the legal obstacles facing the new administration as it tries to carry out the directive.

The plight of one of the men, a former US&nbsp;Army interpreter, is especially compelling, said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who is not involved in the suit.

&quot;Here is a guy who was a translator who worked for the US&nbsp;military for years, who himself was targeted by terrorists,&quot; he said. &quot;It is clear that if he is sent back, he facing a direct threat to his life.&quot;

That man, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released later on Saturday and told a crowd of reporters outside John F. Kennedy International Airport that he did not have ill feelings about his detention.

&quot;America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world,&quot; he said.

Darweesh, 53, worked for the US&nbsp;Army and for a US&nbsp;contractor in Iraq from 2003 to 2013 as an interpreter and engineer, the lawsuit said.

The second plaintiff, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was still being held. He is the husband of an Iraqi woman who worked for a US&nbsp;contractor in Iraq, and she already lives in Houston, the suit said.

Ten other travelers not named in the suit were being detained at JFK Airport on Saturday afternoon, US Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters.

Trump, a Republican, on Friday signed a sweeping executive order that put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travellers from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries. The order would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks, the president said.

Representatives for the White House could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday.

Supporters of the order say the president has wide authority to limit the entry of foreign nationals from specific countries when it is in the national interest.

&quot;If we decided to give green cards only to redheads who can play the spoons, we can do that,&quot; said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies.

The lawsuit on behalf of the Iraqis challenges Trump&#39;s order on several grounds. It says the order violates the US&nbsp;Constitution&#39;s guarantee of due process by taking away their ability to apply for asylum, and violates the guarantee of equal protection by discriminating against them on the basis of their country of origin without sufficient justification.

It also says the order violates procedural requirements of federal rulemaking.

In a separate lawsuit, a California-based private attorney on Saturday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the order, bringing the legal action against Trump on behalf of the &quot;people of the United States&quot; and California, according to a copy of the action posted to news website Politico.com.

The lawsuit accused Trump of violating the US&nbsp;Constitution by infringing on the power of lawmakers in Congress to enact laws on immigration.

Andrew Shalaby, the attorney who brought the lawsuit, acknowledged to Politico he may need to find individual plaintiffs for the suit if a judge rules that is necessary. Shalaby could not be reached for further comment.

Another legal challenge is expected on Monday, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the order targets Muslims and violates the U.S. guarantee of religious freedom.

Trump&#39;s order does not mention specific religions, but in an interview on Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said he was acting to help Christians in Syria who were &quot;horribly treated.&quot;

Comments like that could come back to haunt the president in litigation over his order, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration expert at UCLA School of Law.

&quot;There were comments during the campaign that focused very much on religion as the target,&quot; Motomura said. &quot;If the record showed that the origins of a particular measure were based on targeting a particular group, that could be challenged in court.&quot;

Eric Rothschild, senior litigation counsel at religious liberties group Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said Trump has created a perverse situation for asylum-seekers.

&quot;People will be quizzed on their faith in order to gain access to the country, maybe motivating them to deny their faith,&quot; he said.

(Reuters)

The lawsuit seeks to block Trump's order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers

An initial volley in a potential barrage of legal challenges to President Donald Trump's new restrictions on immigration came on Saturday on behalf of two Iraqis with ties to US security forces who were detained at New York's JFK Airport. In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Brooklyn, New York, the men are challenging the directive on constitutional grounds. The suit says their connections to the American forces made them targets in their home country and the pair had valid visas to enter the United States. The lawsuit, which seeks to block Trump's order on behalf of a class of visa-holders and asylum-seekers, highlights some of the legal obstacles facing the new administration as it tries to carry out the directive. The plight of one of the men, a former US Army interpreter, is especially compelling, said David Leopold, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, who is not involved in the suit. "Here is a guy who was a translator who worked for the US military for years, who himself was targeted by terrorists," he said. "It is clear that if he is sent back, he facing a direct threat to his life." That man, Hameed Khalid Darweesh, was released later on Saturday and told a crowd of reporters outside John F. Kennedy International Airport that he did not have ill feelings about his detention. "America is the greatest nation, the greatest people in the world," he said. Darweesh, 53, worked for the US Army and for a US contractor in Iraq from 2003 to 2013 as an interpreter and engineer, the lawsuit said. The second plaintiff, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was still being held. He is the husband of an Iraqi woman who worked for a US contractor in Iraq, and she already lives in Houston, the suit said. Ten other travelers not named in the suit were being detained at JFK Airport on Saturday afternoon, US Representative Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, told reporters. Trump, a Republican, on Friday signed a sweeping executive order that put a four-month hold on allowing refugees into the United States and temporarily barred travellers from Iraq and six other Muslim-majority countries. The order would help protect Americans from terrorist attacks, the president said. Representatives for the White House could not immediately be reached for comment on Saturday. Supporters of the order say the president has wide authority to limit the entry of foreign nationals from specific countries when it is in the national interest. "If we decided to give green cards only to redheads who can play the spoons, we can do that," said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the conservative Center for Immigration Studies. The lawsuit on behalf of the Iraqis challenges Trump's order on several grounds. It says the order violates the US Constitution's guarantee of due process by taking away their ability to apply for asylum, and violates the guarantee of equal protection by discriminating against them on the basis of their country of origin without sufficient justification. It also says the order violates procedural requirements of federal rulemaking. In a separate lawsuit, a California-based private attorney on Saturday filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the order, bringing the legal action against Trump on behalf of the "people of the United States" and California, according to a copy of the action posted to news website Politico.com. The lawsuit accused Trump of violating the US Constitution by infringing on the power of lawmakers in Congress to enact laws on immigration. Andrew Shalaby, the attorney who brought the lawsuit, acknowledged to Politico he may need to find individual plaintiffs for the suit if a judge rules that is necessary. Shalaby could not be reached for further comment. Another legal challenge is expected on Monday, when the Council on American-Islamic Relations has said it plans to announce a lawsuit arguing that the order targets Muslims and violates the U.S. guarantee of religious freedom. Trump's order does not mention specific religions, but in an interview on Friday with the Christian Broadcasting Network, Trump said he was acting to help Christians in Syria who were "horribly treated." Comments like that could come back to haunt the president in litigation over his order, said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration expert at UCLA School of Law. "There were comments during the campaign that focused very much on religion as the target," Motomura said. "If the record showed that the origins of a particular measure were based on targeting a particular group, that could be challenged in court." Eric Rothschild, senior litigation counsel at religious liberties group Americans United For Separation of Church and State, said Trump has created a perverse situation for asylum-seekers. "People will be quizzed on their faith in order to gain access to the country, maybe motivating them to deny their faith," he said. (Reuters)