Connecticut governor Dan Malloy announced yesterday that if federal funds are cut off to sanctuary cities like New Haven, the state would sue the federal government. It's an empty threat that could only work if the cut is done improperly.
Let's start with the law. Once funds are authorized by Congress and appropriated, they must be spent by the executive branch unless specific authority is granted to the president to withhold or redistribute the money. Congress, however, can change the spending prospectively at any time. This rule of law is the result of a Supreme Court decision from the days when Richard Nixon tried to cut federal spending unilaterally (and ultimately unsuccessfully).
What this all means is that so long as Congress decides to withhold some or all of the funding for states, counties and cities that do not cooperate with the federal immigration enforcement actions, those funds will be cut off without recourse by the states no matter what lawsuit the governor of Connecticut brings.
As of now, most federal spending is being funded by a continuing resolution that will expire before the end of president Obama's term. It will be extended to keep the government running. The current thinking is that the extension of funding will cover spending until some date in March of 2017. When that date is reached, there is no reason why Congress could not include the new conditions on sanctuary cities. This is a move which the Democrats cannot block by a filibuster. All funding measures can be passed by reconciliation which cannot be blocked by a filibuster, so this prevents the Democrats from stopping the bill if the GOP stays unified. Most likely, there will be Democrats who will support the measure as well. Quite a few Democrat senators from states that supported Trump are up for re-election in 2018, and I doubt many will want to oppose Trump on sanctuary cities.
Let's start with the law. Once funds are authorized by Congress and appropriated, they must be spent by the executive branch unless specific authority is granted to the president to withhold or redistribute the money. Congress, however, can change the spending prospectively at any time. This rule of law is the result of a Supreme Court decision from the days when Richard Nixon tried to cut federal spending unilaterally (and ultimately unsuccessfully).
What this all means is that so long as Congress decides to withhold some or all of the funding for states, counties and cities that do not cooperate with the federal immigration enforcement actions, those funds will be cut off without recourse by the states no matter what lawsuit the governor of Connecticut brings.
As of now, most federal spending is being funded by a continuing resolution that will expire before the end of president Obama's term. It will be extended to keep the government running. The current thinking is that the extension of funding will cover spending until some date in March of 2017. When that date is reached, there is no reason why Congress could not include the new conditions on sanctuary cities. This is a move which the Democrats cannot block by a filibuster. All funding measures can be passed by reconciliation which cannot be blocked by a filibuster, so this prevents the Democrats from stopping the bill if the GOP stays unified. Most likely, there will be Democrats who will support the measure as well. Quite a few Democrat senators from states that supported Trump are up for re-election in 2018, and I doubt many will want to oppose Trump on sanctuary cities.
No comments:
Post a Comment