PHILADELPHIA — A federal judge has ruled for Philadelphia in its highly contentious “sanctuary city” case against the Trump administration, saying the city’s refusal to help enforce immigration laws is based on policies that are reasonable, rational and equitable.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson issued his decision Wednesday afternoon, following a four-day trial this spring and nearly a year of litigation, ruling that the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold about $1.5 million in federal law enforcement grant money “violates statutory and constitutional law.”
The money comes under what is called an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. “The city is entitled to prompt payment of the JAG funds,” the judge said.
Mayor Jim Kenney’s office had no immediate comment, as its attorneys were still reviewing the ruling Wednesday afternoon.
The city challenged three specific conditions of the grant:
First, that it must provide U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE, with access to city prisons to conduct interviews with prisoners. Second, that when ICE asks, the city must provide advance notice of when undocumented people are being released from prison. And third, that the city must comply with a law that, according to the federal government, requires local officials to share information about the citizenship or immigration status of any person.
The judge shot those down.
“The public statements of President Trump and Attorney General (Jeff) Sessions, asserting that immigrants commit more crimes than native-born citizens, are inaccurate as applied to Philadelphia, and do not justify the imposition of these three conditions,” he wrote.
In his ruling, Baylson said given that 11 million undocumented people live in the US, “most of them living peacefully with families, children and good jobs,” the complexity of the Philadelphia case demonstrates “the sheer impossibility, as well as great expense, of relying on a policy of ‘removal’ (deportation).”
The Trump administration wanted to hold on to the grant funds unless the city agreed to actively assist federal authorities in identifying and turning over undocumented immigrants. The city sued in the summer of 2017, saying the Police Department is not an arm of immigration enforcement, and that making it one would damage community relations.
A key issue was the city’s refusal to honor ICE detainers for people who were being released from custody, viewing those papers as administrative requests, not binding. City officials say they will respond to a detainer only if that paperwork is accompanied by a signed warrant from a judge.
The Trump administration argued that city policies allow dangerous criminals to be released into the community, when they should be deported to their homelands. It wanted the city to hold people on detainer until ICE agents can get there.
On May 10, as testimony concluded, Baylson said he thought the sides could find a third path, one that would demand minimal concessions. He warned that if the sides could not agree on a compromise, he might do it for them.
