43.7 F
Monday, March 27, 2023
HomeUS PoliticsJudge rules against Sessions' attempt to withhold Chicago funding over sanctuary status

Judge rules against Sessions’ attempt to withhold Chicago funding over sanctuary status



Chicago Tribune photo

CHICAGO – A federal judge ruled Friday against the Department of Justice's attempt to withhold funding from Chicago because the city refuses to cooperate in sharing immigration status info with federal officials.

“The court finds that the city has established that it would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered,” U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber wrote in his ruling.

He said the injunction is nationwide in scope, with “there being no reason to think that the legal issues present in this case are restricted to Chicago.”

The city of Chicago adopted a "welcoming ordinance in 2013" that prohibits disclosure of a person's immigration status and bars federal immigration officials from city facilities. Police are not allowed to ask an individual's immigration status.

Governor Rauner recently signed into law a measure expanding Chicago's policy statewide. 

Crain's explains:

Like other sanctuary cities, Chicago has a longstanding policy of not sharing information with federal immigration authorities unless a suspect is charged or convicted of a serious crime. The policy “promotes cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities,” Chicago said in its complaint.

The Justice Department argued that it has discretion to attach conditions to the Byrne grants and that Chicago was effectively demanding that the U.S. give it control over the program.

At stake was $2.3 million dollars in federal grants to the city of Chicago.

Leinenweber, 80 years old, was appointed by President Ronald Reagan in 1985. 


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories


  1. Hey judicial tyrant, The federal government has no constitutional authority to bestow “grants” on any state or local governments. If you disagree judge please cite the article., Section, clause of the U.S. Constitution that granted the federal govt that authority. I have read and studied the U.S. Constitution and I KNOW that authority was never granted by the U.S. Constitution.
    “The court finds that the city has established that it would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered,” U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber wrote in his ruling.
    A totally moot point, totally irrelevant, what is relevant is the FACT the U.S. Constitution does NOT grant the federal govt the authority to bestow “grants” on state or local governments. The opinion is pure judicial tyranny, it is based on this judge’s worldview, not on constitutional law. There is no basis in the U.S. Constitution for this decision by Leinenweber. It’s pathetic that we have to stand when these tyrants enter the courtroom.
    Third World Banana Republic justice. OWe the People by way of our U.S. Constitution created a federal government with limited and enumerated powers only. The federal govt cannot lawfully do anything they want, we are citizens not subjects of the federal govt. Congress is full of arrogant monarch wannabes like Pelosi, Durbin, Schumer, Paul Ryan, etc….

  2. Who is judge Leinenweber? How did he become a U.S. District Judge? Who appointed him? What is his political background? Why was HE selected to rule on this?
    Was “Judge-shopping” involved in this, maybe?
    These questions need answers.

  3. I hear the judge used the general welfare clause to justify his opinion. THe general welfare clause does not grant a power to gift grants to states and cities. The proof is below.
    Look at the so-called “general welfare” clause: Article I, Sec.8, clause 1, U.S. Constitution, it says:
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…
    Immediately thereafter, follows an enumeration(list) of some 15 specific powers which are delegated to Congress. If you will spend 20 minutes carefully reading through the entire Constitution and highlighting the powers delegated to Congress, you will find (depending upon how you count) that only some 21 specific powers were delegated to Congress for the Country at large. This is what is meant when it is said that ours is a Constitution of limited and enumerated powers. The general welfare clause does NOT allow the federal gov’t to gift grants to states and cities.
    Both Madison and Hamilton addressed and expressly rejected the notion that the “general welfare” clause constitutes a general grant of legislative power to Congress.
    In Federalist No. 41 (last 4 paras), Madison denounced as an “ABSURD” “misconstruction” the notion that
    …the power “to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States,”
    amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare….
    In refuting this “misconstruction”, Madison pointed out that the first paragraph of Art. I, Sec. 8 employs “general terms” which are “immediately” followed by the “enumeration of particular powers” which “explain and qualify”, by a “recital of particulars”, the general terms. Madison also said:
    …Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity…
    Madison was emphatic:
    He said it was “error” to focus on the “general expressions” and disregard “the specifications which ascertain and limit their import”; and to argue that the general expression provides “an unlimited power” to provide for “the common defense and general welfare”, is “an absurdity”.
    In Federalist No. 83 (7th para), Hamilton said:
    The plan of the constitutional convention declares that the power of Congress shall extend to certain enumerated cases. This specification of particulars evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority, because an affirmative grant of special powers would be absurd, as well as useless, if a general authority was intended
    It is clear from Madison and Hamilton that the Constitution does not confer any general or unlimited grant of legislative power for the general welfare to Congress! The general welfare clause does NOT allow the federal gov’t to gift grants to states and cities for any purpose that some congress thinks is for the general welfare.
    Madison & Hamilton are the experts on the original intent and meaning of the constitution, they were there and helped write it! They told us what it means and doesn’t mean in the Federalist, all we have to do is read it.