University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
view search results
page permalink
Case Name City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions IM-CA-0093
Docket / Court 3:17-cv-04642-WHO ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Civil Rights Challenges to Trump Immigration Enforcement Orders
Case Summary
The City and County of San Francisco filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Aug. 11, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff explained that following a series of Trump Administration maneuvers to target so-called "sanctuary ... read more >
The City and County of San Francisco filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) on Aug. 11, 2017, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Plaintiff explained that following a series of Trump Administration maneuvers to target so-called "sanctuary cities," the Administration released a new such policy on July 25, 2017. It imposed two new conditions on recipients of federal funding for policing (such as San Francisco) including: "to (1) provide federal immigration officials access to local detention facilities to interrogate any suspected aliens held there ('Access Requirement'); and (2) provide the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') with 48 hours’ notice before releasing an individual, where the federal government has requested notice in order to take that individual into custody for immigration reasons ('Notice Requirement') (together, the 'Notice and Access Requirements')." San Francisco argued that the Notice and Access Requirements could compel city officials "to unlawfully hold inmates longer than they otherwise would to ensure that DHS receives the required 48 hours of advance notice" and would force plaintiff to ignore its own laws. As such, plaintiff argued that the Notice and Access Requirements violate the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers and spending clauses. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief to ensure it retains federal funding while preventing defendant from enforcing its newest policy.

San Francisco's "sanctuary city laws" prohibit city employees from using city resources to enforce federal immigration laws unless legally required to do so. Specifically, local law enforcement officers are prohibited from cooperating with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) voluntary detainer requests, and are also limited in when they may provide the federal government advance notice of a person’s release from jail. Plaintiff's complaint states that the city enacted these laws "based on robust evidence showing that San Francisco is a safer, healthier, and stronger city when its officials do not enforce federal immigration laws."

San Francisco's complaint stated that the funding at risk comes from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG). By imposing new conditions on this funding, plaintiff alleged, the Notice and Access Requirements threaten the implementation of plaintiff's sanctuary city laws while threatening a critical source of municipal funding.

The case was assigned to Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong on Aug. 15 and reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick on Aug. 24.

On Aug. 17, the State of California moved to relate this case to its own case, State of California v. Sessions, also challenging the Byrne JAG funding conditions. On Aug. 23, the U.S. consented to relate the case but reserved the right to make objections. Judge Orrick then related the two cases on Aug. 25.

The City of Los Angeles moved to intervene on Aug. 22; DOJ opposed this motion on Aug. 29 and Los Angeles replied the next day. Judge Orrick denied the motion on Sept. 11.

DOJ requested an extension of time to answer the complaint. San Francisco objected, noting that the government had recently moved to stay the nationwide injunction in Chicago v. Sessions. Judge Orrick nevertheless granted DOJ's request.

DOJ moved for summary judgment on Oct. 31. It argued that statutory language (in the INA and Byrne JAG statute) authorized DOJ to impose the immigration-related conditions on the grants, without violating the Separation of Powers or Spending Clause principles.

Judge Orrick held a Nov. 27 case management conference. Discovery will end on July 31, 2018; motions will be heard by Sept. 5, 2018; a pretrial conference will be held Nov. 13, 2018; and a bench trial is set for Dec. 10, 2018.

San Francisco filed an amended complaint on Dec. 12, noting that DOJ's grant conditions included San Francisco's compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and federal immigration authorities. San Francisco requested a declaration that it complies with § 1373.

Judge Orrick held a motion hearing on summary judgment on Dec. 13. No order has yet been issued.

The case is ongoing.

Virginia Weeks - 08/29/2017
Ava Morgenstern - 12/14/2017


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Federalism
Defendant-type
Jurisdiction-wide
Law-enforcement
General
Funding
Government Services (specify)
Over/Unlawful Detention
Placement in detention facilities
Public assistance grants
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border
Border police
Criminal prosecution
Deportation - criteria
Deportation - procedure
Detention - criteria
Detention - procedures
Sanctuary city/state
Undocumented immigrants - rights and duties
Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation
Plaintiff Type
City/County Plaintiff
Type of Facility
Government-run
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) U.S. Department of Justice
Plaintiff Description City and County of San Francisco
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Prevailing Party None Yet / None
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief None yet
Source of Relief None yet
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-CA-0094 : State of California v. Sessions (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0085 : City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.)
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
  Memorandum on Rescission Of Deferred Action For Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
www.dhs.gov
Date: Sep. 5, 2017
By: Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

  Herrera and Becerra sue Trump administration to stop latest attack on sanctuary cities
www.sfcityattorney.org
Date: Aug. 14, 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-4642 (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-CA-0093-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/11/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Defendants' Notice of Motion and Motion For Summary Judgment; Memorandum of Points and Authorities [ECF# 46]
IM-CA-0093-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/31/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (N.D. Cal.)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Plaintiff's Lawyers Almadani, Monica Marie-Ramirez (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Clark, James Patrick (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Dundas, Michael Joseph (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Feuer, Michael (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Flynn, Ronald P. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Herrera, Dennis J. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Kamin, Mitchell A. (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Lee, Mollie M. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
McGrath, Aileen M. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Mere, Yvonne Rosil (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Sahni, Neema (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Smith, Jesse C. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001
Steeley, Tara M. (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Van Aken, Christine (California)
IM-CA-0093-0001 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Ventresca, Ivano Michael (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Zionts, David M. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0093-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Readler, Chad A. (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0093-0002
Simpson, W. Scott (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0093-0002 | IM-CA-0093-9000
Tyler, John Russell (District of Columbia)
IM-CA-0093-0002
Other Lawyers Sherman, Lee Isaac (California)
IM-CA-0093-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
view search results
page permalink

- top of page -