Facts

California and the City and County of San Francisco sued the U.S. Department of Justice in relation to an ongoing dispute involving Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program funds. After the 9th Circuit affirmed this court's grant of summary judgment to prevent enforcement of President Donald Trump's Executive Order withholding federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions, former Attorney General Sessions imposed various immigration related requirements to Byrne JAG, including a requirement to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. Section 1373. In fiscal year 2017, in response to motions filed by California and San Francisco, Judge William H. Orrick in the Northern District of California found that Section 1373 was unconstitutional. In fiscal year 2018, the DOJ included similar and additional immigration related requirements on Byrne JAG.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs challenged five conditions in the fiscal year 2018 Byrne JAG funds, alleging violations of the separation of powers and the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the DOJ from enforcing the challenged conditions or withholding Byrne JAG funds based on those requirements. California also sought mandamus relief compelling the DOJ to issue fiscal year 2018 Byrne JAG awards without the challenged conditions.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: The DOJ filed a partial motion to dismiss or partial motion for summary judgment and sought dismissal or judgment on the claims.

Result

The court granted plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and denied the DOJ's motions. The court found the conditions challenged by plaintiffs were ultra vires and violated separation of powers principles. Further, the court reaffirmed his prior conclusion that Section 1373 is unconstitutional and that the attorney general unconstitutionally exceeded the spending clause in the fiscal year 2018 Byrne JAG program. The court also found the conditions were arbitrary and capricious, and granted California mandamus relief.

Other Information

Related to City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, et al.; 3:17-cv-00485-WHO