In another blow to Americans' sovereignty, U.S. District Court Judge Maxine Chesney refused to dismiss a lawsuit that argued Wells Fargo violated federal law by denying loans to illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children. Judge Chesney, a Bill Clinton appointee, argued that the bank violated California civil rights law as well as federal laws prohibiting the denial of loans based on citizenship status.

Both the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund represented more than 750,000 immigrants who came to the United States before age 16 who received protections from President Obama's unconstitutional Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. The program intended to protect those who were registered for deportation despite their unlawful standing in the United States.

Wells Fargo, however, argued that its denial of bank loans to illegal immigrants did not violate the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (15 U.S.C. § 1691) since the act does not mention anything about citizenship. Here is what the law explicitly states:

(a) Activities constituting discrimination: It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction—
(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract);
(2) because all or part of the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program; or
(3) because the applicant has in good faith exercised any right under this chapter.
(b) Activities not constituting discrimination: It shall not constitute discrimination for purposes of this subchapter for a creditor—
(1) to make an inquiry of marital status if such inquiry is for the purpose of ascertaining the creditor’s rights and remedies applicable to the particular extension of credit and not to discriminate in a determination of credit-worthiness;
(2) to make an inquiry of the applicant’s age or of whether the applicant’s income derives from any public assistance program if such inquiry is for the purpose of determining the amount and probable continuance of income levels, credit history, or other pertinent element of credit-worthiness as provided in regulations of the Bureau;
(3) to use any empirically derived credit system which considers age if such system is demonstrably and statistically sound in accordance with regulations of the Bureau, except that in the operation of such system the age of an elderly applicant may not be assigned a negative factor or value;
(4) to make an inquiry or to consider the age of an elderly applicant when the age of such applicant is to be used by the creditor in the extension of credit in favor of such applicant; or
(5) to make an inquiry under section 1691(c)(2) of this title, in accordance with the requirements of that section.

Nowhere in either § 1691(a) or 1691(b) does it suggest that discriminating over immigration status is prohibited. However, Judge Chesney argued that a California law that requires businesses to grant equal contract rights to all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States includes individuals including those who are here illegally. Furthermore, Judge Chesney also argued that federal law did not supersede the state's civil rights laws, thus justifying her refusal to dismiss the lawsuit.

This is ridiculous. Federalism dictates that federal law trumps state law. Nothing in the Constitution states that federal law should be held in lower regard based on the feelings of anyone, including the judicial activists occupying federal courtrooms. Our sovereignty and our borders remain jeopardized as long as the federal courts continue to virtue-signal for those who entered the country illegally. The Left seems bent on ensuring that those who received executive amnesty remain protected, even if the current mechanism to do so was unconstitutional. Even in Trump's America, much needs to be done to repair the Left's damage regarding immigration.

Follow Elliott on Twitter and Facebook.