Kerby Anderson

The ruling by Judge William Orrick on sanctuary cities has been portrayed in two different ways. Either it was one more example of the federal judiciary striking down federal overreach by President Trump or it was a ruling that will have little impact on what this administration does through the Justice Department and Homeland Security.

Former Assistant United States Attorney and columnist Andrew McCarthy argues that it is “A Ruling About Nothing.” That is easy to explain. By the time you make it to page four in the ruling, Judge Orrick acknowledges that Trump’s executive order merely calls for the enforcement of already existing law.

At the heart of this issue is whether the federal government can withhold federal funds when a state or city violates federal law. Those of us who are older remember President Jimmy Carter threatened to withhold federal funds from states that did not enact a 55 mph speed limit. But even young adults probably remember that President Obama threatened to withhold funds from states if they did not comply with his Justice Department ruling on transgender bathroom policies.

Let’s look at this issue another way. Remember when Kentucky Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses because of the 5-4 ruling by the Supreme Court? We weren’t talking about the law passed by Congress and signed by the president. We were talking about a decision rendered by five justices. Critics said she should be fined or even jailed for contempt. Remember the hash tag: #DOYOURJOB.

Let’s apply this same standard to mayors of cities that won’t enforce the law. Shouldn’t we revive the hash tag once again? The problem isn’t an administration that might decide to withhold federal funds. The problem is mayors of cities that won’t do their job.