Regulatory Reform

Questioning the Federal Government and Sanctuary Cities

In a reckless ruling on Tuesday, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration cannot withhold federal funds from jurisdictions that limit their cooperation with immigration authorities, commonly known as sanctuary cities.

U.S. District Judge William Orrick issued his temporary ruling as a result of two lawsuits brought against the administration by the city of San Francisco and the county of Santa Clara. The jurisdictions had argued that billions of federal dollars that support vital services were in jeopardy when the administration threatened to cut all federal funds.

This ruling sets up a dangerous attack on every state’s legal framework of Home Rule and Dillon Rule, which governs the relationship between the states and their political subdivisions. When localities are given standing to sue the federal government over funding, state governments are rendered useless in the governance of those localities.

It should be questioned whether or not the federal government should have any direct financial or regulatory ties with local governments. Local governments are creations of their states, not the federal government. When federal, state and local governments subvert the US Constitution it sets up a Constitutional crisis like this one.

Local governments are not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution. They are solely creations of their states. The federal government could do the nation a service by redirecting all financial and regulatory ties with local governments to the states.

In Depth: Regulatory Reform

In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson said that “the sum of good government” was one “which shall restrain men from injuring one another” and “shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry.” Sadly, governments – federal, state and local – …

+ Regulatory Reform In Depth