By Maura Dolan

Los Angeles Times

SAN FRANCISCO —A federal appeals court decided 2-1 Wednesday that the Trump administration may not withhold federal funds from California’s immigrant-friendly “sanctuary” cities and counties.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district judge’s ruling in favor of San Francisco and Santa Clara County, which sued over the administration’s threats to withhold money to jurisdictions that have passed laws limiting local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

But the court removed a nationwide injunction issued by the judge, concluding that there was not enough evidence presented so far to justify it.

The case stemmed from an executive order issued by President Donald Trump shortly after taking office. He directed his administration to withhold federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions.

The 9th Circuit said Trump exceeded his authority because only Congress can put conditions on federal funds.

“The Executive Order directs the agencies of the Executive Branch to withhold funds appropriated by Congress in order to further the Administration’s policy objective of punishing cities and counties that adopt so-called ‘sanctuary’ policies,’” the 9th Circuit said.

But Congress, not the executive branch, “has the exclusive power to spend,” the court said.

“The United States Constitution exclusively grants the power of the purse to Congress, not the President,” wrote Chief 9th Circuit Judge Sidney R. Thomas, who was appointed by former President Bill Clinton.

The administration argued that the order was “all bluster and no bite, representing a perfectly legitimate use of the presidential ‘bully pulpit,’ without any real meaning —’gesture without motion,’ as T.S. Eliot put it,” Thomas wrote.

But that explanation “strains credulity,” Thomas said.

The ruling quoted Trump expressing his opposition to sanctuary cities in a television interview after issuing his order.

“If we have to defund, we give tremendous amounts of money to California. … California in many ways is out of control,” the court quoted Trump as saying.

The Department of Justice later issued a memorandum interpreting Trump’s order as affecting only three law enforcement grants historically conditioned on compliance with immigration law.

But the 9th Circuit said that interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the executive order.

The court left the injunction in place for California because it found there was sufficient evidence that the counties and the state were “particular targets.”

But there was little to no evidence presented on the impact of the executive order outside California, the 9th Circuit said.

“The record as presently developed does not justify a nationwide injunction,” the court said.

Judge Ferdinand F. Fernandez, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, dissented.

He argued the case was not “ripe” for a decision, in part because no action has been taken against the counties.

“While the counties may be convinced that the Executive Order loosed a fearsome chimera upon them, that does not mean that the courts should take up arms to vanquish the imagined beast by slaying the Executive Order itself,” Fernandez said.