On August 14, 2017, the State of California's Attorney General filed this lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), including its component Office of Justice Programs (OJP), in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The State challenged the DOJ's imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the state.

California and its political subdivisions receive federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program administered by the DOJ. California alleged 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 stated that it believed 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 the DOJ misinterpreted these laws as non-compliant. In any event, California argued that the conditions were so ambiguous that the DOJ could continue to wrongly deny California the funding. Additionally, California believed that Congress did not intend Byrne Jag funding to be conditioned in this way.

California argued that by imposing these conditions on this funding, the DOJ threatened the implementation of state laws and also 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." Furthermore, California stated 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.

Finally, California argued that the access and notification requirements violated the U.S. Constitution's Separation of Powers and Spending Clauses (by usurping Congress' ability to set conditions for funding), as well as the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious and exceeding the DOJ's statutory authority). Furthermore, California stated 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 the 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 the 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 arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and that the state's relevant statutes do not violate § 1373. California also alleged that the conditions would cause it permanent and irreparable harm.

The DOJ opposed the preliminary injunction motion on Nov. 22. First, it argued that the funding conditions were constitutional because the INA links immigration enforcement and law enforcement. Additionally, the 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, the DOJ alleged that California would not suffer harm because it had accepted the same funding condition in FY2016.

On Dec. 4, the DOJ notified the Court that it had awarded a COPS grant to California, but that these funds were unavailable until the DOJ completed its inquiry into whether California complied with § 1373.

Judge Orrick held a Dec. 13 hearing on California's motion for preliminary injunction, and denied it in a Mar. 5, 2018 order. 284 F. Supp. 3d 1015. He held that the 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, 2018, the DOJ moved to dismiss the complaint. It argued that the challenged conditions were authorized by statute and did not violate the Spending Clause, separation of powers, or the APA.

On March 5, 2018, Judge Orrick denied the DOJ's motion to dismiss. First, he held that California had standing because it had a well-founded fear of enforcement, injury-in-fact, and ripe claims. Next, he 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 the 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. 2018 WL 3399214.

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, Judge Orrick granted summary judgment for California. 349 F. Supp. 3d 924. The court held that the challenged conditions violated the separation of powers and were 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 take into account important considerations. Finally, the court held that California and San Francisco's laws comply with the federal conditions anyway under the court's interpretation of § 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, at the government's request, so that it would not preclude the DOJ from bringing preemption claims under other federal statutes. The amended judgment retained the prohibition on the government from relying on § 1373 as an independent federal ground for placing conditions on other programs.

In December of 2018, the DOJ appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit finally heard oral argument on December 2, 2019. On July 13, 2020, the Ninth Circuit upheld the bases for the injunction but limited its scope, thus reducing it from a nationwide injunction to one applicable only within California's borders. The court reasoned that the plaintiffs did not offer reasons that relief needed to be extended to non-parties to the suit in order to shield the plaintiffs.

The government appealed the case to the Supreme Court on November 17, 2020. Following the 2020 election of President Joseph Biden, however, the incoming Biden administration asked the Court to hold the petition in abeyance until the DOJ could re-formulate its policy. After the Supreme Court rescheduled the conference twice in February, on March 4, 2021, the DOJ and challengers agreed to dismiss the appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ava Morgenstern - 05/05/2018
Virginia Weeks - 12/04/2018
Sam Kulhanek - 03/08/2020
Matthew Feng - 03/19/2021


compress summary