The City of Seattle commenced this lawsuit on March 29, 2017 to challenge President Trump's January 25, 2017 Executive Order (EO),
Executive Order 13768. The EO denies federal funding to cities that resist enforcing the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies. Represented by private attorneys, the City of Seattle filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington seeking declaratory relief.
According to the complaint, Seattle decided on a policy that law enforcement should not inquire into anyone's immigration status "unless specifically required to do so by law or court order." Pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1373, a city that restrict the government from information regarding the immigration status of any individual would be designated as a "sanctuary jurisdiction,” thus in violation of the statute. The effect of such a designated would be denying Seattle “significant funding that it uses for such essential purposes as home care for the disabled elderly and nutrition assistance for needy children.” Seattle requested that the Court declare it to be in compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373 and also declare that the EO violated the Tenth Amendment and the Spending Clause.
The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 5. The motion argued that Seattle cannot show injury and that the claim is not ripe. The motion also argued that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Meanwhile, on April 25, 2017, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against operation of the Executive Order. See
San Francisco v. Trump for details.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on June 26, 2017 and on July 5, the court struck the motion to dismiss as moot. Then, on July 10, defendants filed a new motion to dismiss plaintiffs' amended complaint, arguing that the cities have not met their burden of showing clear injury and that the cities' amended complaint is based on mere speculation as to the order's scope. The court denied the motion to dismiss on October 19.
On October 30, 2017, the parties filed a joint motion to stay proceedings pending resolution in
County of Santa Clara v. Trump in the Ninth Circuit. The court granted the motion the next day.
In the Santa Clara case, the Ninth Circuit 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. 897 F.3d 1225. Back in this court, on October 24, Judge Jones, in a summary order, entered judgment, declaring the EO unconstitutional and the withholding of funds from Seattle and Portland pursuant to the EO unconstitutional as well.
There is no more docket activity after October 24, 2018, and no appeal was noticed. The case is now closed.
Virginia Weeks - 04/02/2017
Jamie Kessler - 07/10/2017
Virginia Weeks - 10/25/2018
Sichun Liu - 02/17/2019
compress summary
