Special Order 40 In BIG Trouble
The City filed a motion called a "demurrer," which says, basically, "Judge, even if the plaintiff proved every fact alleged in the complaint, the plaintiff would not be entitled to any relief." That kind of motion is VERY important in a case like this, because it requires the judge to rule on the fundamental legal issues involved in the case. Here, for example, it means the judge had to decide whether, as a matter of law, a City can "opt out" of enforcing federal immigration law.
Well, guess what? The judge overruled the demurrer, i.e., he ruled that, if Judicial Watch can prove the facts it alleged re Special Order 40, then Judicial Watch is entitled to relief from the court.
That is HUGE, people!
Kudos to Judicial Watch. I have to confess, I did not think this lawsuit would survive a demurrer, but it has, and that means Judicial Watch might very well succeed in invalidating Special Order 40. Of course, by that time, the federal government may have granted amnesty to everyone already here illegally. . . .
The gist of the lawsuit, as I understand it, is that Special Order 40 prevents the police from reporting violations to the federal government, and that this constitutes an improper expenditure of funds. I gather the judge accepts the premise that prohibiting police from asking about immigration status is tantamount to prohibiting them from reporting same to the feds, and accepts the premise that this policy entails an expenditure of funds. Those points aren't as obvious to me, but hey, in a tie, the guy wearing the robe wins!
You can read the judge's ruling yourself: ruling.
And, so you know, the judge wasn't Ito.