Extra

Donald Trump has provided us with a teachable moment: his executive order denying funds to sanctuary cities has spurred a public conversation on the scope of presidential power to force states and cities to do his will.

On Southern California public radio station KPCC, two law professors squared off with different views of Trump’s legal power to make his executive order stick. 

Seth Davis of UC-Irvine emphasized the obstacles in Trump’s way. John Eastman of Chapman University cautioned that the obstacles were not as significant as Davis and others have made out. 

Davis and Eastman appear to agree that the president cannot make funds that have already been granted conditional on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. They appear to agree that cooperation could be made a condition of some future grants. They also agree that immigration enforcement has to be reasonably related to the purpose of the grant. 

Where they appear to disagree is on the potential range of grants that could be tied to cooperating with federal immigration authorities. Davis suggests that the range of funding to which the executive order would apply is narrow and that, further, the amount of funds lost is not likely to be significant enough to encourage sanctuary cities to change their policies. 

For the Davis-Eastman discussion, listen to KPCC’s Jan. 27 Air Talk. 

Davis earlier laid out his legal views on the protections available to sanctuary cities in the Washington Post: “Trump can’t force ‘sanctuary cities’ to enforce his deportation plans.” 

For another view on the same topic, see Ilya Somin’s analysis in the Washington Post. 

(Stay tuned to the BDP for updates on legal commentary on the Trump administration.)