In Our View: Trump Must Respect Limits

Setting aside for a moment the efficacy of the order itself, a court ruling this week regarding sanctuary cities demonstrates the Trump administration’s failure to understand this nation’s constitutional protections.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick of San Francisco ruled that an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to withhold funding from sanctuary cities likely is unconstitutional. The order would halt some funding to cities that do not cooperate with federal immigration agents regarding the status of undocumented immigrants, but Orrick halted the order on two counts: The president cannot place conditions on spending already approved by Congress; and even if the president could take such action, the funds would have to be related to the issue in question.

It was the third setback in federal court for the administration, which previously had two attempts at a ban upon travel from Muslim-majority countries shot down. Following the ruling on sanctuary cities, Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings.” White House chief of staff Reince Preibus decried the latest ruling as another example of the “9th Circuit going bananas.”

Throughout the court setbacks, it has become evident that bluster from Trump and others has damaged their own cause, and that the president’s persistent criticism of legal rulings has reduced the level of discourse.

There is an argument to be made that cities and counties should, indeed, cooperate with immigration authorities. If somebody who is an undocumented immigrant is taken into custody under suspicion for another crime, Trump and many of his supporters believe that immigration officials should be alerted to possibly begin deportation proceedings. Officials in sanctuary cities and counties — which include Portland, Seattle, and King County — argue that local law enforcement should not serve as the immigration police, and that fear of deportation would prevent immigrants from seeking police involvement.

The issue deserves discussion, but Trump’s rhetoric has skewed that discussion. Orrick ruled that previous statements by the president and by administration officials, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, demonstrated that the sanctuary city order was meant as a punitive measure against cities that do not bow to federal will — even as federal lawyers argued otherwise in court. Orrick even quoted White House spokesman Sean Spicer, who at one point said, “Counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cities don’t get federal government funding.” That helped to make the administration’s desires exceedingly clear and, to Orrick, rendered them unconstitutional.

The decision, like the rulings on a travel ban, places a temporary halt to the administration’s desires while the issue works its way through the system. Trump tweeted, “See you in the Supreme Court.”

We hope that is the case. Trump might have some worthy goals, and he is, indeed, the president. But the administration’s demonstrated lack of understanding regarding the power of the presidency, our checks and balances, and this nation’s court system is a frequent cause of frustration for those who believe in the dignity of the United States and our time-tested system of government.

As San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said: “This is why we have courts — to halt the overreach of a president and an attorney general who either don’t understand the Constitution or choose to ignore it.”