News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Court Hearing on Monday, May 15, Regarding Taxpayer Lawsuit Over - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Court Hearing on Monday, May 15, Regarding Taxpayer Lawsuit Over San Francisco’s Sanctuary Policy Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Liz 

  • 1.4% Neanderthal
  • Group: Moderator
  • Posts: 48,592
  • Joined: 28-February 03

  Posted 13 May 2017 - 11:23 PM

Court Hearing on Monday, May 15, Regarding Taxpayer Lawsuit Over San Francisco’s Sanctuary Policy

Lawsuit Involves Federal Authority over Immigration Policy

Judicial Watch
MAY 12, 2017


(Washington, DC) — Judicial Watch today announced a court hearing will be held on Monday, May 15, 2017, before Judge Harold A. Kahn regarding Judicial Watch’s taxpayer lawsuit against San Francisco Sheriff Vicki Hennessy and the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department (SFSD) to prevent the use of taxpayer funds on policies “that prohibit or restrict SFSD personnel from sharing … immigration-related information with federal immigration law enforcement officials.” The suit was filed on behalf of Cynthia Cerletti, a taxpayer of the City and County of San Francisco, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (Cynthia Cerletti v. Vicki Hennessy (No. CGC-16-556164)). Recent filings in this case can be read here.

After Judicial Watch filed its suit, which invokes the federal government’s preeminent authority over immigration, San Francisco filed its own lawsuit in which it asks that its sanctuary policy be declared legal.


On March 13, 2015, then-San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, who oversaw San Francisco’s jails, issued a directive prohibiting SFSD sheriff’s deputies and other officials from providing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with information about inmates’ citizenship or immigration status. Judicial Watch filed suit to challenge the directive (Cynthia Cerletti v. Ross Mirkarimi (CGC-15-549250)).

Mirkarimi lost reelection to Hennessy, and, in April 2016, Hennessy replaced Mirkarimi’s directive with her own. Hennessy’s new directive still restricts the ability of sheriff’s deputies to communicate freely with ICE about inmates’ citizenship/immigration status. On December 23, 2016, Judicial Watch dismissed its original lawsuit and filed a new lawsuit challenging Hennessy’s 2016 policy directive.

Five weeks later, on January 31, 2017, San Francisco filed suit against the Trump Administration (City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, et al., (No. 3:17-cv-00485)). San Francisco’s lawsuit asks that the city’s sanctuary ordinance and laws be declared lawful and that one of the longstanding federal immigration laws cited in Judicial Watch’s lawsuit, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, be declared unconstitutional. San Francisco’s lawsuit also asks that the federal government be prohibited from enforcing President Trump’s Executive Order barring sanctuary jurisdictions from receiving certain federal funds. San Francisco’s lawsuit is in direct conflict with Judicial Watch’s lawsuit.

Not including federal funds, the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department receives over $200 million in taxpayer support annually to fund its operations, a portion of which is being spent to carry out the Hennessy policy directive and train personnel on its requirements. As California grants its taxpayers the right to sue government officials to prevent expenditures of taxpayer funds on unlawful activities, Judicial Watch filed suit against Mirkarimi and subsequently Hennessy, in their official capacities, on behalf of Cerletti.


The Rest Here

#2 User is offline   moocow 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Bronze Community Supporter
  • Posts: 1,045
  • Joined: 18-December 04

Posted 14 May 2017 - 01:05 AM

I don't think you can sue governments over use of spending. I don't think being a taxpayer gives you standing in such cases. But seems the height of arrogance to sue the federal government over your own illegal acts, asking them to be declared legal.

Share this topic:

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users