Laserfiche WebLink
File Number: 17-045 <br />involving the Affordable Care Act and Medicaid expansion in states that, while Congress can <br />offer Medicaid funds to States to expand health care coverage, “What Congress is not free to <br />do is to penalize States that choose not to participate in that new program by taking away <br />their existing Medicaid funding” (National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, <br />132 S. Ct. 2566 [2012]). In short, Congress may use its spending power to create incentives <br />for states to act in accordance with federal policies, but it may not exert conditions that compel <br />the states’ policy choices. In other words, the City of San Leandro could argue that the <br />amount of money at issue to the City would leave the City no real option but to acquiesce, <br />because the impact of the loss of such funds would have specific and detrimental <br />consequences, some of which are unrelated to the executive order’s goal. <br />In the case of enforcing ICE detainers, in addition to the 10th Amendment, there are <br />questions as to whether the order would violate an individual’s 4th Amendment prohibition on <br />self-incrimination by not creating an independent basis for probable cause to justify detainer. <br />Other Federal Efforts in Congress <br />Members of both parties of the California congressional delegation have signed on as <br />cosponsors to a bill that would extend Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) <br />protections if President Trump discontinues the program via executive order. The “Bar <br />Removal of Individuals who Dream and Grow our Economy Act,” or “BRIDGE Act” would <br />temporarily spare from deportation, and extend employment authorization to, people currently <br />eligible for the Department of Homeland Security’s DACA program. <br />Responses from Other Cities <br />Following the November election and in advance of President Trump’s inauguration, local <br />officials in more than ten major cities, including San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles, New <br />York, Chicago, and Washington, D.C., reaffirmed their commitment to upholding their status <br />as "sanctuary cities", even in the face of federal threats. <br />Other cities in the Bay Area have also adopted various resolutions or other policy statements <br />declaring their intention to remain places of refuge or sanctuary, including the Cities of <br />Richmond, Alameda, Berkeley, and Emeryville. Copies of their adopted resolutions are <br />attached. Most of these cities have not explicitly used the phrase “sanctuary city” in their <br />policies. <br />On January 31, 2017, the City and County of San Francisco filed a lawsuit in U.S. District <br />Court in the Northern District of California, alleging that President Trump’s order violates the <br />10th Amendment. <br />Jurisdictions in other parts of the country have taken alternative approaches. For example, <br />days after the issuance of the order, the Mayor of Miami-Dade County, Florida publicly <br />directed the head of the agency’s Corrections and Rehabilitation Department to “honor all <br />immigration detainer requests received from the Department of Homeland Security,” thereby <br />eliminating that community’s prior sanctuary status. <br />Response from National League of Cities <br />Page 5 City of San Leandro Printed on 2/16/2017