This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Constitutional Law
Enhancing Public Safety

City and County of San Francisco v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States; United States of America; John F. Kelly, Secretary of United States Department of Homeland Security; Jefferson B. Sessions, Attorney General of the United States, Does 1 to 100

Published: Feb. 2, 2018 | Filing Date: Jan. 31, 2017 |

Case number: 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Summary Judgment –  Plaintiff

Judge

William H. Orrick III


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Dennis J. Herrera
(San Francisco Public Utilities Commission)

Jesse C. Smith
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Sara J. Eisenberg
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Mollie M. Lee
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Tara M. Steeley
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Yvonne R. Mere
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Ronald P. Flynn
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Christine B. Van Aken
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)

Neha Gupta
(Office of the San Francisco City Attorney)


Defendant

Sara Winslow
(Office of the U.S. Attorney)

W. Scott Simpson
(U.S. Dept. of Justice)


Facts

The President of the United States issued an Executive Order, which included a provision directing that so-called sanctuary jurisdictions would be ineligible to receive grants from the federal government.

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: The County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco argued the portion of the executive order, which denied federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions, was unconstitutional on its face. The counties brought motions for summary judgment, arguing the executive order violated the separation of powers doctrine by attempting to use the spending powers held by Congress. Further, the plaintiffs contended the executive order was overbroad and coercive in violation of the Tenth Amendment, and vague and deprives funds in violation of the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. In public comments, the Attorney General and the President made statements regarding the large scope of the executive order.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The federal government argued the executive order should be narrowly interpreted, and did not place any new conditions on federal grants. Rather, the government contended, the executive order should withstand a facial challenge because it is not invalid under all circumstances, nor was it overly coercive, or applicable to funding in the counties' protectable interest under the constitution.

Result

The court determined the President is not vested with power over government spending, and therefore could not declare new conditions for the issuance of federal funds. The counties successfully showed the executive order would cause constitutional injuries. The court also found the executive order's conditions did not hold muster under the Tenth Amendment with regard to the conditions' timeliness, relation to the funds, and coerciveness. The counties' Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights were deprived, the court concluded. The counties' motion for summary judgment was granted. The applicable provision of the executive order was permanently enjoined on a nationwide basis.


#128861

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390