Despite efforts, Donald Trump fails to cut funding from sanctuary cities

President Donald Trump's administration has unsuccessfully tried to withhold federal funds from jurisdictions it considers to be sanctuaries for immigrants in the country illegally.

So-called sanctuary cities are jurisdictions that have limited cooperation with immigration authorities. Trump argues that these places attract illegal immigration and crime, and therefore should not receive federal funds.

The Justice Department in July 2017, under then-Attorney General Jeff Sessions, said that jurisdictions that wanted to receive law enforcement grants under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program had to comply with new requirements.

The criteria included allowing immigration officials access to any detention facility they operate, and to give immigration authorities at least 48 hours advance notice of a scheduled release of an immigrant whenever the Department of Homeland Security made a request. Sessions also said jurisdictions had to certify compliance with Section 1373 of the U.S. Code, which says federal, state or local government entities or officials may not prohibit or restrict the exchange of information with federal immigration officers regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual.

But the Justice Department's condition of the federal grant has been challenged by jurisdictions across the country, with state and federal judges largely ruling against the Justice Department.

Multiple federal judges have found Section 1373 itself to be unconstitutional. A judge in one of the cases against the Justice Department also said that local jurisdictions' decision not to assist federal immigration officers is not an obstacle to that immigration enforcement effort. Overall, courts have said that the administration cannot place conditions on the grants.

Following Trump's directions, the Justice Department has attempted to cut funds from so-called sanctuary cities. But Trump's promise has not been fulfilled because courts have found legal shortcomings in his approach. We rate this as Promise Broken.