University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name City and County of San Francisco v. Trump IM-CA-0085
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-00485-WHO ( N.D. Cal. )
Additional Docket(s) 3:17−cv−00574−WHO  [ 17-574 ]
3:17−cv−01535−WHO  [ 17-1535 ]
3:17−cv−04642−WHO  [ 17-4642 ]
3:17−cv−04701−WHO  [ 17-4701 ]
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Presidential Authority
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Take Care
Case Summary
This lawsuit, filed by the City of San Francisco on Jan. 31, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary ... read more >
This lawsuit, filed by the City of San Francisco on Jan. 31, 2017, challenges President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order on immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary jurisdictions" and take enforcement action against any locality that impedes the federal government's immigration law. The City filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

The complaint argued that this issue was one of "state sovereignty and a local government’s autonomy to devote resources to local priorities and to control the exercise of its own police powers, rather than being forced to carry out the agenda of the Federal government." Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the executive order violated the Tenth Amendment. The complaint addressed 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. After asserting its compliance with the statute, the complaint alleged that the U.S. had begun to designate non-compliant cities as sanctuary cities and that San Francisco had been designated as such. The complaint asserted that §1373 unconstitutionally regulated state governments and that San Francisco stood to be harmed by the executive order.

The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiff asked for a declaration that San Francisco complies with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, that 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) violates the Tenth Amendment, and that the executive order's enforcement directive violates the Tenth Amendment. The case was initially assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna Ryu, but on Feb. 10, Judge William Orrick granted a motion to relate this case to County of Santa Clara v. Trump, IM-CA-0089 in this Clearinghouse, and reassigned this case to himself. On Feb. 27, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. The amended complaint added that San Francisco seeks a declaration that the EO's funding restrictions violate the Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause, and Article I, sec. 1 of the Constitution.

On Mar. 8, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. In the motion, the plaintiff requested that the court enter a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the executive order. The plaintiff also sought to enjoin the defendants from taking any action that would declare San Francisco a sanctuary city, thereby making the city ineligible for federal funds. On Mar. 23, the city of Richmond moved to relate this case to Richmond v. Trump (IM-CA-0090 in this Clearinghouse), which had been filed on Mar. 21 in the same court. The court granted the motion on Mar. 23. Several individuals and organizations have filed amici briefs in support of the plaintiff including the State of California, a local chapter of the NAACP, and several Silicon Valley technology companies. After an Apr. 14 hearing, the Court, on Apr. 25, entered a nationwide injunction against operation of the Order.

The court explained that the federal government at the hearing had disavowed a robust reading of the Executive Order:
It explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President’s “bully pulpit” to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement. Under this interpretation, Section 9(a) applies only to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. This interpretation renders the Order toothless; the Government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law. Counsel disavowed any right through the Order for the Government to affect any other part of the billions of dollars in federal funds the Counties receive every year.
The Court held, however, that the Executive Order "is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing."

Yet a broader reading was, Judge Orrick explained, unconstitutional: "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves."

Accordingly, the Court granted a preliminary injunction against any broader implementation of the order, although it emphasized that the preliminary injunction "does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. 1373, nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such." County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017).

The government moved for reconsideration pursuant to a May 22, 2017 memorandum from the Attorney General regarding the implementation of the EO. The memo specified that "the Department of Justice will require jurisdictions applying for certain Department grants to certify their compliance with federal law, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373, as a condition for receiving an award. This certification requirement will apply to any existing grant administered by the Office of Justice Programs and the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services that expressly contains this certification condition and to future grants for which the Department is statutorily authorized to impose such a condition. All grantees will receive notice of their obligation to comply with section 1373." Further, "the term 'sanctuary jurisdiction' will refer only to jurisdictions that 'willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373.'" On May 23, the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint. The defendants moved to dismiss on June 6. On July 6, the plaintiff Santa Clara (followed by joinders from San Francisco and Richmond on July 7) moved for leave to file a surreply in opposition to the motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs argued that recent statements by President Trump and DHS officials contradicted assertions in the defendants' reply brief. On July 12, the plaintiff also filed a supplemental request for judicial notice of recent statements by AG Sessions.

On June 16, 2017, the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of the defendants' motion to dismiss. On June 28, 2017, many organizations, including labor unions, civil rights groups, and public schools, as well as individual sheriffs and police chiefs, moved to file amici briefs in support of the plaintiff's opposition to the defendants' motion to discuss.

On July 12, 2017, Judge Orrick held a hearing (in all three related cases) on the defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. He issued an order on July 20, denying the defendants' motions. He denied the motion for reconsideration because the AG Memorandum did not change the analysis from the preliminary injunction order. Additionally, he denied the motion to dismiss because the AG Memorandum did not change his findings of the plaintiff's standing and their claims' ripeness and likelihood of success. Finally, he concluded that the plaintiff had adequately stated a claim for declaratory relief. County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 2017 WL 3086064 (N.D. Cal. July 20, 2017).

On Aug. 15 and 17, 2017, the plaintiff in an administrative motion and supplemental statement asked the court to relate City and County of San Francisco v. Trump to City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions. The plaintiff argued that both cases concerned substantially the same parties and challenged the President's withholding of federal funds from sanctuary cities. On Aug. 18, 2017, the defendants responded, arguing that the cases should not be related because the first challenged an EO and the latter an AG program. On Aug. 23, 2017, Judge Orrick granted the plaintiff's request to relate this case to City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions. Then on Aug. 25, 2017, he found State of California v. Sessions to be a related case, and reassigned it to himself. That case also challenges DOJ's immigration-related conditions on law enforcement funding.

On Aug. 30, 2017 San Francisco and Santa Clara moved for summary judgment. San Francisco argued that the EO was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Consequently, San Francisco argued, the court should permanently enjoin the EO's implementation. The defendants, in their Sept. 27, 2017 response, argued that the Constitution authorized their broad immigration enforcement powers as implemented in the EO and § 1373. On Sept. 18, 2017 the defendants appealed, to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Orrick's Apr. 25, 2017 preliminary injunction and July 20, 2017 order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration. The Ninth Circuit opened a docket for the appeal, No. 17-16886. The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on Apr. 11. In the district court, Judge Orrick held an Oct. 23 hearing on the plaintiffs' Aug. 30 motion for summary judgment. On Nov. 20, he granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, permanently enjoining the defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) of the EO against all jurisdictions deemed as "sanctuary jurisdictions." The injunction applied nationwide because Section 9(a) was facially unconstitutional.

In his opinion, Judge Orrick held that the EO had caused and would continue to cause constitutional injuries, by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving the plaintiffs of their Fifth and Tenth Amendment rights. Judge Orrick first stated that the EO's plain language impermissibly empowers the President to place new conditions on all federal funds -- a power properly reserved to Congress under the Spending Clause. The President's and AG's subsequent comments on the EO had confirmed, rather than narrowed, this broad scope. Further, the Fifth and Tenth Amendments forbid funding conditions that are vague, unrelated to the funds at issue, and coercive: "Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves."

On Nov. 29, 2017 the parties jointly requested that the Court dismiss San Francisco's claim for declaratory judgment (that it did not violate § 1373), which the Court would consider instead in San Francisco v. Sessions. The next day, Judge Orrick granted this request. On Dec. 14, 2017 the defendants appealed Judge Orrick's Nov. 20 permanent injunction, asking the Ninth Circuit to consolidate this appeal with the other two appeals in process. The plaintiffs, for their part, asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the consolidated appeals as moot because they challenged a preliminary injunction that the permanent injunction had superseded. The defendants responded on Dec. 27. Eleven states filed a Dec. 22, 2017 amicus brief supporting the defendants. However, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' request on Jan. 4, denying all pending motions as moot.

The Ninth Circuit held oral argument on April 11, 2018. On August 1, 2018 the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment, but vacated and remanded for reconsideration of the nationwide injunction. The panel held that the executive branch could not refuse to disperse the federal grants without congressional authorization under the Separation of Powers principle and the Spending Clause. The panel found that Congress had not so authorized, and so summary judgment was proper, but that there were no findings to support an injunction with nationwide reach. 2018 WL 3637911.

On Aug. 29, 2018 the plaintiff in an administrative motion asked the court to relate City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions III and State of California v. Sessions. The defendants did not oppose the motion. On Sept. 10, 2018, the court related the cases to this case.

The case is ongoing.

Ava Morgenstern - 04/14/2018
Jamie Kessler - 05/29/2017
Virginia Weeks - 09/26/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Federalism
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
General
Funding
Immigration/Border
Sanctuary city/state
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Homeland Security
U.S. Department of Justice
United States
Plaintiff Description City of San Francisco
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief Litigation
Filing Year 2017
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0089 : County of Santa Clara v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0090 : City of Richmond v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0094 : State of California v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093 : City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0133 : State of California v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0132 : City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions III (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  See this case at CourtListener.com (May provide additional documents and, for active cases, real-time alerts)
  Sanctuary Cities
www.sfcityattorney.org
Date: Aug. 30, 2017
By: San Francisco City Attorney
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Implementation of Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
The Washington Post
Date: May 22, 2017
By: Jefferson Sessions (U.S. Department of Justice)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Implementing the President's Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements Policies (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Re: Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest (Final, 2/20/2017)
dhs.gov
Date: Feb. 20, 2017
By: DHS Secretary John Kelly (United States Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

  Executive Order 13767: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 27, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
Citation: 82 Fed. Reg. Presidential Documents 8793 (Jan. 27, 2017)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ]

  Executive Order 13768: Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States
Federal Register
Date: Jan. 25, 2017
By: President Donald Trump (Office of the President)
[ Detail ] [ PDF ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
4:17-cv-00485-DMR (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/21/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0085-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 01/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 11]
IM-CA-0085-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Support Regarding Santa Clara's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 12]
IM-CA-0085-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Statement of Support Regarding Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 18]
IM-CA-0085-0004.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Case Order [ECF# 19] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0005.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/10/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
First Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 20]
IM-CA-0085-0006.pdf | Detail
Date: 02/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
City and County of San Francisco's Notice of Motion and Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof [ECF# 21]
IM-CA-0085-0007.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Ben Rosenfield in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 22]
IM-CA-0085-0008.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Melissa Whitehouse in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 23]
IM-CA-0085-0009.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sheriff Vicki Hennessy in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 24]
IM-CA-0085-0010.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Commander Peter Walsh in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 25]
IM-CA-0085-0011.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Tomas Aragon, MD, PhD, in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 26]
IM-CA-0085-0012.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Colleen Chawla in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 27]
IM-CA-0085-0013.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Declaration of Sara J. Eisenberg in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 28]
IM-CA-0085-0014.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Request for Judicial Notice in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 29]
IM-CA-0085-0015.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/08/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Letter to the Court Re: CCSG v. Trump, et al.; Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO [requesting guidance for amicus procedures] [ECF# 30]
IM-CA-0085-0016.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Proposed] Brief Amici Curiae (and Administrative Motion for Leave to File Brief Amici Curiae Supporting Plaintiff) [ECF# 33]
IM-CA-0085-0018.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order [ECF# 34]
IM-CA-0085-0019.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amici Curiae Brief of Professors of Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, and Immigration Law in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and Administrative Motion for Leave to File) [ECF# 36]
IM-CA-0085-0020.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae Southern Poverty Law Center and Other Amici in Support of County of Santa Clara and City and County of San Francisco’s Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 38]
IM-CA-0085-0021.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae Technology Companies in Support of Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 39]
IM-CA-0085-0022.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae California Cities and Counties – County of Alameda, City of Berkeley, City of Davis, City of East Palo Alto, City of Fremont, County of Marin, County of Monterey, City of Mountain View, City of Oakland (...) [ECF# 40]
IM-CA-0085-0023.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Proposed Brief for Tahirih Justice Center, Et Al. as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motions for Preliminary Injunctions (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 41]
IM-CA-0085-0024.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Administrative Motion of City of Richmond to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-12(B) and Notice of Related Case Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-13 [ECF# 43]
IM-CA-0085-0025.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Support of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 47]
IM-CA-0085-0026.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Statement of Support Regarding City of Richmond's Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related [ECF# 52]
IM-CA-0085-0027.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Related Case Order [ECF# 53] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0028.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/24/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
[Proposed] Brief of Amici Curiae Public Schools, School Districts, and Associations of Educators (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 58]
IM-CA-0085-0029.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief Amici Curiae of Individual Sheriffs and Police Chiefs in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 59]
IM-CA-0085-0030.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
City and County of San Francisco's Reply and Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 60]
IM-CA-0085-0031.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of City and County of San Francisco's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 61]
IM-CA-0085-0032.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amicus Brief of 36 Cities and Counties in Support of City and County of San Francisco’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 62]
IM-CA-0085-0033.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 63]
IM-CA-0085-0034.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction’s Brief as Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 64]
IM-CA-0085-0035.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
State of California’s Amicus Curiae Brief in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 66]
IM-CA-0085-0036.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amicus Curiae Anti-Defamation League in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction [ECF# 67]
IM-CA-0085-0037.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Nonprofit Associations as Amici Curiae in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 68]
IM-CA-0085-0038.pdf | Detail
Date: 03/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order [ECF# 72] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0039.pdf | Detail
Date: 04/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting the County of Santa Clara's and City and County of San Francisco's Motions to Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive order 13768 [ECF# 82] (250 F.Supp.3d 497) (S.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0041.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting the County of Santa Clara's and City and County of San Francisco's Motions to Enjoin Section 9(a) of Executive Order 13768 [ECF# 98] (250 F.Supp.3d 497) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0040.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 04/25/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Joint Case Management Statement [ECF# 83]
IM-CA-0085-0042.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/02/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants’ Notice of Motion and Motion for Reconsideration Or, in the Alternative, Clarification of the Court’s Order of April 25, 2017; Memorandum of Points and Authorities (and motion for leave to file) [ECF# 102]
IM-CA-0085-0043.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 105]
IM-CA-0085-0044.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/23/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss; Memorandum of Point and Authorities [ECF# 111]
IM-CA-0085-0045.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/06/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 115]
IM-CA-0085-0046.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Reply in Support of Defendants' Motions to Dismiss [ECF# 133]
IM-CA-0085-0047.pdf | Detail
Date: 06/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [ECF# 139]
IM-CA-0085-0048.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/12/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Denying the Government's Motions for Reconsideration and To Dismiss With Regards To the City and County of San Francisco and the County of Santa Clara [ECF# 146] (2017 WL 3086064) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0049.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Date: 07/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 149]
IM-CA-0085-0050.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supplemental Statement in Support of Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 153]
IM-CA-0085-0051.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/17/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Response to Administrative Motion to Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related Pursuant to N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 3-12(B) [ECF# 155]
IM-CA-0085-0052.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Notice of Motion and Motion For Summary Judgment, or In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 158]
IM-CA-0085-0053.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment Or, In the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 172]
IM-CA-0085-0054.pdf | Detail
Date: 09/27/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Reply to Opposition to Motion For Summary Judgment or, in the Alternative, Partial Summary Judgment [ECF# 177]
IM-CA-0085-0055.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/04/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco's Administrative Motion to Consider Post-Hearing Developments [ECF# 193]
IM-CA-0085-0056.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/02/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Motion For Summary Judgment [ECF# 200] (275 F.Supp.3d 1196) (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0057.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 11/20/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order for Voluntary Dismissal of Count One of San Francisco's Second Amended Complaint Without Prejudice [ECF# 201]
IM-CA-0085-0058.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/29/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order for Voluntary Dismissal of Count One of San Francisco's Second Amended Complaint Without Prejudice [ECF# 202] (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085-0060.pdf | Detail
Date: 11/30/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Errata to Order Granting Motion for Summary Judgment [ECF# 203]
IM-CA-0085-0059.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/07/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Dismiss Appeals [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-14]
IM-CA-0085-0061.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Motion to Consolidate Appeals and Retain Existing Briefing Schedule [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-15]
IM-CA-0085-0062.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/15/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief for Appellants [Ct. of App. ECF# BL-16]
IM-CA-0085-0063.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/18/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Brief of Amici Curiae the States of West Virginia, Louisiana and 9 Other States in Support of Defendants-Appellants [ECF# BL-26]
IM-CA-0085-0064.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/22/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Opinion [Ct. of App. ECF# 136] (897 F.3d 1225)
IM-CA-0085-0065.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 08/01/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Orrick, William Horsley III (N.D. Cal.) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0005 | IM-CA-0085-0028 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0040 | IM-CA-0085-0041 | IM-CA-0085-0049 | IM-CA-0085-0057 | IM-CA-0085-0059 | IM-CA-0085-0060 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Eisenberg, Sara J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Flynn, Ronald P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Flynn, Robert Michael (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0039
Gupta, Neha (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Herrera, Dennis J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0016 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0048 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0051 | IM-CA-0085-0053 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | IM-CA-0085-0060 | IM-CA-0085-0061
Lee, Mollie M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0001 | IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0016 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0048 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0051 | IM-CA-0085-0053 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Lee, Matthew S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
McGrath, Aileen M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | IM-CA-0085-0060 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Mere, Yvonne Rosil (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Sherman, Lee Isaac (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Smith, Jesse C. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0044 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056
Steeley, Tara M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Taylor, Jennifer Lee (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Van Aken, Christine (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0003 | IM-CA-0085-0006 | IM-CA-0085-0007 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0027 | IM-CA-0085-0031 | IM-CA-0085-0032 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0046 | IM-CA-0085-0050 | IM-CA-0085-0055 | IM-CA-0085-0056 | IM-CA-0085-0061 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Buckingham, Stephen J. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0043
Hinshelwood, Brad (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0062 | IM-CA-0085-0063
Readler, Chad Andrew (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | IM-CA-0085-0060 | IM-CA-0085-0063
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054 | IM-CA-0085-0058 | IM-CA-0085-0060 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Stern, Mark B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0062 | IM-CA-0085-0063
Stretch, Brian (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054 | IM-CA-0085-0063
Tenny, Daniel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0062 | IM-CA-0085-0063
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0004 | IM-CA-0085-0019 | IM-CA-0085-0039 | IM-CA-0085-0042 | IM-CA-0085-0043 | IM-CA-0085-0045 | IM-CA-0085-0047 | IM-CA-0085-0052 | IM-CA-0085-0054
Other Lawyers Aguilar, Edmundo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0035
Alger, Maureen P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0038 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Artiga-Purcell, Jose Camilo (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025
Axelrod, Julie B. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Badlani, Chirag (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0030
Baker, Andrew H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018
Benedict, Adriana Lee (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Bergeron, Claire M. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0024
Berner, Nicole (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Burrichter, Christopher S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Cabraser, Elizabeth J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Carroll, Catherine M.A. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0024
Carter, Margaret L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Chatterjee, Indra Neel (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Cotchett, Joseph W. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025
Dermody, Kelly M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Dietz, Rebecca H (Louisiana) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Ehrlich, Lisa Catherine (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0036 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Escamilla, David A. (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Fineman, Nancy L. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Foxx, Kimberly M. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Fritz, Kathryn J. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Gertner, Leo (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Gewertz, Nevin M (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0034 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Ghassemi-Vanni, Sheeva June (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Goldberg, Nicholas Samuel (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Goldstein, Danielle Luce (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Goodmiller, Bruce Reed (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0024 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Hansen, Greta Suzanne (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Harris, Cody Shawn (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Harvey, Dean M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Hernandez, Philip M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Holloway, Amy Bisson (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0035
Holtzman, Jonathan V. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0023
Hyde, Hayes P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Johnson, Thomas Michael Jr. (West Virginia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Jones, Lauren A. (New York) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0037
Kazantzis, Kyra A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0038
Keker, John Watkins (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002 | IM-CA-0085-0061
Lamy, Michelle A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Lederer, Caryn C (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0030
Li, Jun (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0020
Lin, James (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0026
Lubin, Katherine Collinge (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Magaziner, Fred T. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Malkani, Latika (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018
McClellan, Nathan M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0021 | IM-CA-0085-9000
McKee, Charles J (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
McRae, Dana (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Menz, Sheila E. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0024
Morrisey, Patrick (West Virginia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0064
Narayan, Kavita Kandala (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
O'Leary, Ann Margaret (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Perrin, Robert Ward (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0037 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Peterson, Erica N. (West Virginia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0064
Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0030 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Premo, Patrick E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Prestel, Claire (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Prouty, Thomas Howard (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0035 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Purcell, Annasara G. (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Purcell, Daniel Edward (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Reider, Nicholas A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Renne, Louise H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0023
Rhea, Meghan (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Ross, Linda Margaret (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0023 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Salahi, Yaman (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Schuman, Brett M. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0026 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Serrano, Lawrence Javier (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Sherman, Monique R (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0038
Shih, Daniel Jeffrey (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Siegel, Jonathan H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018
Smith, Deborah L. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Sokol, William A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0018
Sommovilla, Rachel Hanna (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025
Spiegel, Julia Blau (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Summer, Alexandra P. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0025
Teshima, Darren S. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0029 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Van Nest, Robert A. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002
Washington, Brian E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Whelan, Amy E. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Williams, James R. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0002 | IM-CA-0085-0061
Winner, Sonya (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0020 | IM-CA-0085-9000
Wright, Franklin H. (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-9000
Wright, H. Kevin (Washington) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Zane, Shirlee (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Ziegler, Donna Raylene (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0033
Zimmerman, Mitchell (California) show/hide docs
IM-CA-0085-0022 | IM-CA-0085-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -