Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Second Circuit Reverses Judge Ramos on “Sanctuary Cities,” Allows Executive Order Cutting Funding

By Michael Keough on February 26, 2020
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

Earlier today, the Second Circuit reversed a decision by Judge Ramos that had invalidated an executive order targeting “sanctuary cities” that did not cooperate with federal law enforcement on immigration issues (see our previous coverage here).

Judge Ramos had held that the order was arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedures Act, and impinged on the powers of state and local governments.  The Second Circuit disagreed, noting that the federal government has broad power to enforce immigration policy:

[W]e cannot agree that the federal government must be enjoined from imposing the challenged conditions on the federal grants here at issue. These conditions help the federal government enforce national immigration laws and policies supported by successive Democratic and Republican administrations. But more to the authorization point, they ensure that applicants satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight.

Nor can we agree with the district court that the challenged conditions impermissibly intrude on powers reserved to the States.  As the Supreme Court has repeatedly observed, in the realm of immigration policy, it is the federal government that maintains “broad” and “preeminent,” power, which is codified in an “extensive and complex” statutory scheme.  Thus, at the same time that the Supreme Court has acknowledged States’ “understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,” it has made clear that a “State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”

As Chief Justice John Marshall wrote over 200 years ago, “the states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 436 (1819). This fundamental principle, a bedrock of our federalism, is no less applicable today. Indeed, it pertains with particular force when, as here, Congress acts pursuant to its power under the Spending Clause.

Photo of Michael Keough Michael Keough

Michael Keough focuses his practice on complex civil litigation and white-collar criminal defense matters. His experience spans the entire life cycle of cases, from discovery disputes through trial and appellate matters, and has ample experience in case management.

Read more about Michael KeoughEmail
  • Posted in:
    Government and Public Policy
  • Blog:
    SDNY Blog
  • Organization:
    Steptoe LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo