University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name City of Evanston v. Sessions IM-IL-0022
Docket / Court 1:18-cv-04853 ( N.D. Ill. )
State/Territory Illinois
Case Type(s) Immigration and/or the Border
Special Collection Take Care
Case Summary
On July 16, 2018, the City of Evanston, Illinois, along with the U.S. Conference of Mayors filed this lawsuit against the Justice Department to enjoin it from imposing three new conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG program), a federal grant program ... read more >
On July 16, 2018, the City of Evanston, Illinois, along with the U.S. Conference of Mayors filed this lawsuit against the Justice Department to enjoin it from imposing three new conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG program), a federal grant program that provides crucial support for law enforcement in hundreds of cities nationwide. These three conditions would require that (1) cities give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which includes U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 48 hours’ notice (or at least as much notice as practicable) prior to releasing any alien in custody (the “notice condition”); (2) cities give DHS officials unlimited access to local law enforcement facilities to interrogate any suspected noncitizen held there (the “access condition”); and (3) the chief legal office of each local government certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which purports to bar local governments from restricting the sharing of immigration status information with the federal government (the “compliance condition”).

The plaintiffs sued the DOJ under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Declaratory Judgment Act. Specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the DOJ lacked statutory authority to condition Byrne JAG funds on the notice, access, and compliance conditions. Additionally, they argued that the three conditions amounted to improper usurpation of Congress’s spending power by the executive branch, thus violating separation of powers. Even if there was no improper delegation, the plaintiffs argued that Congress could not have authorized the conditions because they do not satisfy additional requirements of the Spending Clause. The plaintiffs also argued that the conditions violate the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering principle, as well as the APA, as they were arbitrary and capricious. The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the DOJ’s three conditions on Byrne JAG funding were unlawful, as well as an injunction preventing the DOJ from imposing the conditions. The case was originally assigned to Judge Charles R. Norgle, but was shortly thereafter reassigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber. The case resembles City of Chicago v. Sessions.

On July 20, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. On August 9, 2018, the court held that the plaintiffs had standing and issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the DOJ from attaching the three challenged conditions to grants awarded to the City of Evanston and any Conference member. However, given the court of appeals’ rehearing en banc concerning the nationwide scope of the preliminary injunction in City of Chicago v. Sessions, the court stayed the injunction in this case as applied to the Conference. The plaintiffs appealed the court’s stay on the preliminary injunction as to the Conference and on August 29, the Seventh Circuit lifted the court’s stay and ordered that the preliminary injunction be entered as originally ordered.

On October 5, 2018, the DOJ appealed the grant of the preliminary injunction to the Seventh Circuit. However, the parties filed a joint motion to hold appellate proceedings in abeyance, which was granted on October 15.

On December 10, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint which challenged two additional conditions on Byrne JAG program funding: (1) the questionnaire condition, which required that cities answer questions about whether it has an policies about how employees may communicate with ICE or DHS and (2) the harboring condition, by which Byrne JAG awards were to be conditioned on the applicant agreeing not to violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a).

On February 11, 2019, the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The court held a hearing on the plaintiffs’ motion on April 9. The defendants then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and for lack of jurisdiction, and in the alternative, for summary judgment. The court has not yet ruled on these cross motions. This case is ongoing.

Eva Richardson - 05/27/2019


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
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 Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Defendant(s) Department of Justice
Plaintiff Description The City of Evanston, Illinois and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Order Duration 2018 - n/a
Filing Year 2018
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing IM-OR-0008 : Oregon v. Trump (D. Or.)
Docket(s)
1:18-cv-4853 (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0022-9000.pdf | Detail
Date: 05/31/2019
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 1]
IM-IL-0022-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 07/16/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [ECF# 23] (N.D. Ill.)
IM-IL-0022-0002.pdf | Detail
Date: 08/09/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Amended Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief [ECF# 46]
IM-IL-0022-0003.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/10/2018
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
show all people docs
Judges Leinenweber, Harry Daniel (N.D. Ill.) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0002
Plaintiff's Lawyers Cooper, Kyle Alexander (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
Fitzgerald, John Matthew (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
Gaal, Melody L (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
Haussmann, Brian C. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
Masoncup, Michelle Lee (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
O'Brien, Katherine M. (Illinois) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-0001 | IM-IL-0022-0003 | IM-IL-0022-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Mauler, Daniel (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-9000
Rosenberg, Brad P. (District of Columbia) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-9000
Other Lawyers Enoch, Craig T. (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-9000
Hacker, David J. (Texas) show/hide docs
IM-IL-0022-9000

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -