A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that the U.S. government has to continue providing money to counties while they defy federal law and protect illegal aliens from the consequences of their law-breaking.

The ruling came from Judge William H. Orrick, who had been accused by a by a political blog of buying his court seat for accepting the appointment from Barack Obama shortly after “bundling and donating at least $230,000 to Obama.”

His order came in a case brought by Santa Clara County and the County of San Francisco.

They demanded a court order that the federal government could not cut funding to them – even though they are in violation of federal law by protecting illegal aliens – being so-called “sanctuaries.”

Orrick gave it to them.

“The counties have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their challenge to Section 9(a) of the executive order, that they will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction, and that the balance of harms and public interest weigh in their favor. The counties’ motions for a nationwide preliminary injunction, enjoining enforcement … are granted,” he said.

“The defendants (other than the president) are enjoined from enforcing Section 9(a) of the executive order against jurisdictions they deem as sanctuary jurisdictions.”

The Gateway Pundit commented, “The trend sweeping liberal cities and states that are protecting criminal aliens (because if you are here illegally, you are a criminal) has gone another step too far. We are giving liberties to those who do not in any capacity deserve them. We are jeopardizing our financial well-being as well as the well-being of REAL Americans.”

The decision will last only as long as it takes for the lawsuit to work its way through the system, however.

America is headed down a suicidal path – but it’s a subtle invasion. Get all the details in Leo Hohmann’s brand new book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” available now at the WND Superstore.

The counties that complained said the executive order from Trump affected all federal funding, but Department of Justice lawyers explained it only affected those programs they specifically mentioned. The judge sided with the counties.

Acting Assistant Attorney General Chad Readler had explained the funding cutoff was for three specific DOJ and DHS grant programs “that require complying with a federal law that local governments not block officials from providing people’s immigration status.”

The Trump administration issued the order, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” because it explained sanctuary cities allow dangerous criminals back on the street and that the order is needed to keep the country safe.

It said simply, “It is the policy of the executive branch to ensure, to the fullest extent of the law, that a state, or a political subdivision of a state, shall comply with [federal law].”

The counties’ policies and practices are “at odds,” the judge found.

The order said those locations that “willfully refuse to comply” would be “not eligible” for federal grants.

WND reported last month when U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions said jurisdictions must demonstrate they are not sanctuary cities to receive financial grants from the Justice Department.

He identified three grant programs – the COPS grants, Byrne grants and State Criminal Alien Assistance Program money – that already require certification.

The Obama administration didn’t end up enforcing that policy, but Sessions said he’ll begin.

Sanctuary cities refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and thereby inhibit the enforcement of federal immigration laws, harboring illegal criminal aliens and criminal refugees.

Watch Sessions’ statements:

Sessions said:

According to one recent poll, 80 percent of Americans believe that cities that make arrests — that arrest illegal immigrants for crimes should be required to turn them over to immigration authorities. Unfortunately, some states and cities have adopted policies designed to frustrate this enforcement of immigration laws. This includes refuses to detain known felons under federal detainer requests or otherwise failing to comply with these laws. For example, the Department of Homeland Security recently issued a report showing that in a single week, there were more than 200 instances of jurisdictions refusing to honor I.C.E. Detainer requests with respect to individuals charged or convicted of a serious crime. These charges and convictions against these aliens include drug trafficking, hit-and-run, rape, sex offenses against a child and even murder. Such policies cannot continue. They make our nation less safe by putting dangerous criminals back on the streets.

Today, I am urging states and local jurisdictions to comply with these federal laws, including 8 U.S.C. Section 1373. Moreover, the Department of Justice will require that jurisdictions seeking or applying for Department of Justice grants to certify compliance with 1373 as a condition of receiving those awards. This policy is entirely consistent with the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs guidance that was issued just last summer under the previous administration. This guidance requires state and local jurisdictions to comply and certify compliance with Section 1373 in order to be eligible for OJP grants. It also made clear that failure to remedy violations could result in withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants. I strongly urge our nation’s states and cities and counties to consider carefully the harm they are doing to their citizens by refusing to enforce immigration laws and to rethink these policies. Such policies make their cities and states less safe. Public safety as well as national security are at stake and put them at risk of losing federal dollars.

The issue of sanctuary cities moved onto the public stage recently when it was reported by WND, Fox News and other news outlets that a 14-year-old girl had been brutally raped by two illegal aliens inside a Rockville, Maryland, high-school bathroom. The two alleged rapists were ages 17 and 18 and had been placed in the ninth grade at Rockville High.

WND was one of the first to deliver a comprehensive report on the Montgomery County assault of the 14-year-old, who was forced into a bathroom and into a stall where the two young men allegedly raped and sodomized her.

According to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are more than 300 sanctuary cities and counties in the United States. The Department of Homeland Security has released a list of the 100 worst offenders.

WND also reported that sanctuary cities do, indeed, experience higher crime rates than do non-sanctuary cities.

A WND analysis confirmed an August 2016 study of the relationship between “sanctuary city” policies and crime rates shows that cities refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities consistently have significantly higher violent crimes rates than do non-sanctuary cities with similar populations and demographics.

The study from researchers at the University of California-Riverside and Highline College in Des Moines, Washington, frequently is cited by “sanctuary cities” supporters who ignore or downplay one important detail – the actual crime statistics of the carefully selected cities chosen for the comparison model.

An analysis of the data by WND reveals that non-sanctuary cities comparable in population, size and demographics consistently – year over year – experience and report lower percentages of violent crime as well as lower percentages of property crimes.

The authors of the study, researchers Loren Collingwood, Benjamin Gonzalez-O’Brien and Stephen El-Khatib, admit their assumptions going into the study were that differences in crime rates would be negligible. And their stated conclusions are that’s what was found.

America is headed down a suicidal path – but it’s a subtle invasion. Get all the details in Leo Hohmann’s brand new book “Stealth Invasion: Muslim Conquest Through Immigration and Resettlement Jihad,” available now at the WND Superstore.

However, their report buries the actual statistics. The statistics show, from 2000 through 2014, sanctuary cities have had higher crime rates than non-sanctuary cities, with the disparity growing over time.

The report revealed violent crime rates are, in fact, drastically higher in sanctuary cities than their non-sanctuary counterparts, as is evidenced by the chart the authors used to delineate their conclusion.

Source: The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime and Undocumented Immigration; Aug.16, 2016. Data based on FBI crime statistics.

Source: The Politics of Refuge: Sanctuary Cities, Crime and Undocumented Immigration; Aug.16, 2016. Data based on FBI crime statistics.

Powered by WPeMatico