Hi Tink, well I have spent a while on this, and learned a great deal...yes, it is a fine example of what you were saying about Carlson, and the Santa Clara guy seems hopelessly ill-informed so that you even wonder how he holds his position of such responsibility, and Tucker Carlson did not let him slide by.
My question would be, since Tucker Carlson is a national commentator, representing MSM, shouldn't he himself have also done his research to know the constitutional grounds upon which the sanctuary cities won their lawsuit? And report that to his listeners?
And I will tell you, for me it was NOT EASY to figure that out, i.e., the grounds that Orrick used to find in favour of the sanctuary spots...apparently, some Fifth Amendment but mostly the Tenth Amendment. Tenth is, "the federal government possesses only those powers delegated to it by the United States Constitution. All remaining powers are reserved for the states or the people."
Here is something from a legal scholar, in the Washington Post: "...Supreme Court precedent mandates that the federal government may not impose conditions on grants to states and localities unless the conditions are "unambiguously" stated in the text of the law "so that the States can knowingly decide whether or not to accept those funds...Any such condition must be passed by Congress, and may only apply to new grants, not ones that have already been appropriated. The executive cannot simply make up new conditions on its own and impose them on state and local governments. Doing so undermines both the separation of powers and federalism.
Even aside from Trump's dubious effort to tie it to federal grants, Section 1373 is itself unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the federal government may not 'commandeer' state and local officials by compelling them to enforce federal law. Such policies violate the Tenth Amendment."
So I kinda fault both of them, but especially the Santa Clara official.
Here if a Huff Post article that posts the entire November 2017 Orrick ruling, but I could not really figure that out...except I thought Orrick sounded a bit vindictive toward Trump.