The State of California's Attorney General, on behalf of the State, filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including its component Office of Justice Programs (OJP), on Aug. 14, 2017. The complaint was filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.
California and its political subdivisions receive federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program administered by DOJ. California noted that the latest DOJ requirements for FY2017 program funding imposed new conditions on recipients: "to: (a) provide federal immigration enforcement agents with the Department of Homeland Security ('DHS') access to detention facilities to interview inmates who are 'aliens' or believed to be 'aliens' (the 'access condition'); and (b) provide 48 hours’ advance notice to DHS regarding the scheduled release date of an 'alien' upon request by DHS (the 'notification condition')."
California believed that its relevant laws (the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act statutes, governing DHS's access to inmates in state and local custody) in fact complied with these conditions but that DOJ misinterpreted these laws as non-compliant. In any event, California argued that the conditions were so ambiguous that DOJ could continue to wrongly deny California the funding. Additionally, California believed that Congress did not intend these immigration-related conditions in the Byrne JAG statute.
By imposing these conditions on this funding, California alleged, the requirements threatened the implementation of state laws while threatening a critical source of state and municipal funding to "support law enforcement programs, reduce recidivism, conduct prevention and education programs for at-risk youth, and support programs for crime victims and witnesses." California argued that the access and notification requirements would compel it to choose between either maintaining federal funding or maintaining its own sovereignty over public safety, but not both.
California argued that the access and notification requirements violated the U.S. Constitution's Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses (by usurping Congress's ability to set conditions for funding), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious and exceeding DOJ's statutory authority). Furthermore, California argued that the requirements would force it to violate the Fourth Amendment by holding detainees past their ordinary release time.
In advance of the imminent Sept. 5, 2017 city deadline and Sept. 25, 2017 state deadline to apply for FY2017 Byrnes JAG funding, California sought declaratory and injunctive relief. California asked the Court to declare that California complied with relevant federal law, and that the notification and access requirements were invalid. California also asked the Court to enjoin DOJ from conditioning funding on the notification and access requirements or otherwise withholding funding based on California's existing relevant laws.
The case was assigned to Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James on Aug. 15 and reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick on Aug. 28. Judge Orrick had, on Aug. 25, related this case to
City and County of San Francisco v. Trump following the State of California's motion in that case.
California filed an amended complaint on Oct. 13. It included an update, maintaining that DOJ had aimed to send award notification letters by Sept. 30, but that neither California nor any of its local jurisdictions had received a letter. California requested a declaration from the Court that relevant state laws (the Values Act and the Shield Confidentiality Statutes, in addition to the TRUST Act and TRUTH Act) do not violate the DOJ conditions.
California then moved for a preliminary injunction on Oct. 31, amended Nov 7. It argued, first, that it would likely succeed on the merits of its claim that the JAG's 8 U.S.C. § 1373 conditions are unlawful under the Spending Clause and the APA's arbitrary and capricious provision, and that the state's relevant statutes do not violate § 1373. California also alleged that the conditions would cause it permanent and irreparable harm.
DOJ opposed the preliminary injunction motion on Nov. 22. First, DOJ argued that the funding conditions were constitutional because the INA links immigration enforcement and law enforcement. Additionally, DOJ noted that it had not determined that the TRUTH Act or TRUST Act violated § 1373, and argued that the Values Act was unlikely to comply with § 1373. Finally, DOJ alleged that California would not suffer harm because it had accepted the same funding condition in FY2016. California replied on Dec. 1.
On Dec. 4, DOJ notified the Court that it had awarded a COPS grant to California, but that these funds were unavailable until DOJ completed its inquiry into whether California complied with § 1373. California replied on Dec. 7, and DOJ on Dec. 11.
Judge William Orrick held a Dec. 13 hearing on California's motion for preliminary injunction, and denied it in a Mar. 5, 2018 order. Judge Orrick held that DOJ's withholding of the grant would not cause irreparable injury because the amount of money was small in comparison to California's budget and payment appeared to be delayed rather than denied.
On Jan. 16, DOJ moved to dismiss. DOJ argued that the challenged conditions were authorized by statute and did not violate the Spending Clause, Separation of Powers Clause, or APA. California responded on Jan. 30, and DOJ replied on Feb. 6.
After a Feb. 28 motion hearing, on Mar. 5, Judge Orrick denied DOJ's motion to dismiss. First, Judge Orrick held that California had standing because it had a well-founded fear of enforcement, injury-in-fact, and ripe claims. Next, Judge Orrick held that California had stated legally sufficient claims for relief with respect to the notice and access conditions, following the reasoning in
City of Chicago v. Sessions and
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions which found the conditions to exceed DOJ's statutory and constitutional authority.
In response to Judge Orrick's Mar. 5 order denying California's motion for preliminary injunction, California moved for reconsideration. However, Judge Orrick denied this second motion on Apr. 24.
On Sept. 10, 2018, the court related this case to two additional cases:
City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions III and
State of California v. Sessions.
On October 5, 2018, the court (Judge Orrick) granted summary judgment for California. 2018 WL 4859528. The court held that the challenged conditions violated the separation of powers and where unconstitutional, and that the DOJ exceeded its Spending Power and therefore violated the constitution. The court reasoned that Congress inappropriately delegated its spending power to the executive, and that even if validly delegated, the conditions were too ambiguous and unrelated to their goal for the DOJ to validly exercise the delegated power. The court also held that the conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA, because the DOJ did not give adequate reasons for imposing the conditions and it did not consider important problems with its conditions. Finally, the court held that California and San Francisco's laws comply with the federal conditions anyway under the court's interpretation of Section 1373 "limiting it to information relevant to citizenship or immigration status not including release date information" and not requiring "state and local governments to share contact information and release status information with federal immigration officials." The court thus issued a nationwide injunction.
On November 20, 2018 the court amended the judgment so that it would not preclude DOJ from bringing preemption claims under other federal statutes. The amended judgment retained the prohibition on the government from relying on Section 1373 as an independent federal ground for placing conditions on other programs.
In December of 2018, the DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. As of March 1, 2019, the case is still pending a decision on the appeal.
Ava Morgenstern - 05/05/2018
Virginia Weeks - 12/04/2018
compress summary
