On July 18, 2018, the States of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey and Washington, and the Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia (“the States”) filed this lawsuit in The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), specifically the United States Attorney General in his official capacity as the federal official in charge of the DOJ, under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Ex Parte Young. The plaintiffs, represented by their Attorney Generals as well as outside counsel, sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs claimed that the DOJ had violated the Separation of Powers, the APA and the Tenth Amendment Anti-Commandeering.

In their complaint, the States outlined problems inherent to the DOJ’s implementation of new conditional requirements for the Byrne JAG funds in the 2017 Fiscal Year (“FY”). The Byrne JAG program provides funding for States, allowing them to prioritize criminal justice programs needed in their unique areas. On July 25, 2017, the DOJ announced that the FY 2017 Byrne JAG funds would have three immigration-related conditions. This was done following Executive Order 13768, which threatened to deny federal grant funding to “sanctuary jurisdictions.” In order to receive funding in FY 2017, the States needed to meet three immigration-related conditions, which were (1) to allow federal agents, upon request, access to correctional facilities in order to question suspected noncitizens about their right to be in or stay in the United States, (2) to respond to requests from the Department of Homeland Security to give advance notice of the scheduled release date and time of noncitizens at state or local correctional facilities, and (3) to comply with various conditions related to 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which included prohibiting states and localities from restricting their officials from communicating with immigration authorities regarding anyone’s citizenship or immigration status, monitoring compliance of all subgrantees, and notifying the DOJ if the State became aware of evidence that a subgrantee was not in compliance.

The case was assigned to Judge Edgardo Ramos on July 19, 2018. Shortly after, on July 26, 2019, the Court accepted the plaintiffs’ request in The City of New York v. Whitaker , 1:18-cv-06474 to relate the States’ and the City of New York’s cases because the City of New York was filing their action against the same defendants for the same conduct.

On July 20, 2018, the DOJ released the FY 2018 State Solicitation. In the FY 2018 version, the DOJ added to the conditions the States must meet in order to be eligible for the funds. In response, on August 6, 2018, the States submitted an amended complaint, adding the State of Rhode Island as a plaintiff and addressing the problems with the conditions in the FY 2018 State Solicitation.

On August 17, 2018, both the States and the City filed a motion for partial summary judgment. The States requested summary judgment on the portions of the complaint related to FY 2017, seeking specifically declaratory judgment that the immigration conditions placed the program were unlawful, an injunction that enjoined the defendants from imposing those conditions nationwide, and a writ of mandamus directing the defendants to disburse New York City’s FY 2017 award and to issue new awards without the three conditions to all grantees nationwide that previously received the award documents.

The ACLU filed an Amicus Brief on August 31, 2018 in support of the plaintiffs. They argued that the actions taken by the defendants to put immigration-related conditions on the JAG funds were inappropriate claims to authority because they upset the balance of power between state governments and the federal government, and that their imposed conditions were negatively impacting the plaintiffs’ ability to supervise their own police forces.

On September 14, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss both this case and the related City of New York case, arguing that the immigration-related conditions on the JAG funds did not violate the Separation of Powers, that Congress delegated authority to the DOJ to place conditions on the grants, that the conditions did not violate the Spending Clause because the conditions bear a relationship to the purposes of the Byrne JAG Program, and that even if the Court were to grant an injunction it should be limited to the parties rather than nationwide.

On November 30, 2018, Judge Ramos issued an opinion and order denying the defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment, or in the alternative, motion to dismiss, and granting the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. 343 F. Supp 3d 213. Judge Ramos granted summary judgment on the States’ and the City’s claims holding that:

• Notice, Access and Compliance conditions were ultra vires and not in accordance with law under APA (Counts II and III, City Count II)
• 8 U.S.C. sec. 1373(a)-(b) insofar as it applies to states and localities was facially unconstitutional under the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment (Count V, City Count V and XI)
• Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions violated constitutional separation of powers (Count I, City Count I). Deny City Count IV (violation of the Spending Clause) as moot
• The notice, access, compliance conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA (Count IV, city Count III)

He ordered the defendants to:

• Disburse the FY 2017 Byrne JAG awards to the States
• Stop enforcing the immigration-related conditions it tried to impose on the State’s FY 2017 Byrne JAG awards
• Reissue the States’ FY 2017 Byrne JAG documents without the immigration-related conditions

In his ruling, Judge Ramos declined to issue a nationwide injunction, as requested by the plaintiffs. He noted that such a move was not necessary to afford the plaintiffs’ relief and that the scope of decisions by other district courts in like cases has been similarly limited.

After a conference, Judge Ramos modified the opinion and removed the requirement to reissue the documents to the States on January 4, 2019.

On January 28, 2019, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals of the Second Circuit of the injunction issued against the defendants in the district court’s November 30, 2018 opinion and order.

Back in the district court, the plaintiffs again filed a motion for partial summary on March 1, 2019. The plaintiffs requested summary judgment on the portions of the complaint related to FY 2018, sought seeking specifically declaratory judgment that the immigration conditions placed the program were unlawful, an injunction that enjoined the defendants from imposing those conditions, and a writ of mandamus directing defendants to disburse New York City’s FY 2018 award and to issue new awards without the three conditions to all grantees that previously received the award documents. On April 12, 2019, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, partial summary judgment.

As of October 15, 2019, the case was still ongoing and the appeal and the parties’ motion for partial summary judgment remained pending.

Caitlin Kierum - 10/15/2019


compress summary