Not a lawyer. My understanding is constraints like this have to be set at the time the funding standards are set. I believe the Trump administration got into trouble previously for attempting to pull funding from “sanctuary cities” where the funding had not been preconditioned.
-
-
-
Yeah, here we go. San Francisco County v. Trump, from the 9th Circuit. Decided on a separation of powers reasoning, because Congress, not the President, sets conditions (unless Congress has explicitly delegated that power): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2018/08/01/17-17478.pdf …
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Good discussion of this exact issue starting on page 18 of the Slants opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/15-1293_1o13.pdf …
-
Thank you!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I really think we need to copy
@Popehat just to anger him and make his life less worth living. -
That means, probably nope.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
Obviously that would be unconstitutional.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Yes, yes it is unconsitutional. Flying a flag is speech. Government cannot punish you for your speech. Withholding benefits because of your speech = punishment. See flag burning cases
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.