This case deals with the Trump Administration's effort to require state police departments to cooperate in immigration enforcement, which was part of the implementation of Executive Order 13768, which promised in January 2017 to deny federal grant funding to “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The lawsuit began on July 18, 2018, when the States of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia (“the States”) a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The plaintiffs sued the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) (formally, the Attorney General) under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and Ex Parte Young. The States, represented by their Attorneys General as well as outside counsel, claimed that the DOJ had violated the Separation of Powers, the APA and the Tenth Amendment Anti-Commandeering requirement; they sought declaratory and injunctive relief.

In their complaint, the States challenged the DOJ’s implementation of new conditional requirements for Byrne JAG funds in the 2017 Fiscal Year (“FY”). The Byrne JAG program provides funding for States, allowing them to prioritize chosen criminal justice programs. On July 25, 2017, the DOJ announced that applicants for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funds would have to agree to three immigration-related conditions: (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 that case, brought by the City of New York, with this one; the NYC action was 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 new FYI 2018 conditions.

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 and sought 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.

On February 26, 2020, a Second Circuit panel (Circuit Judges Ralph Winter, Jose Cabranes, and Reena Raggi) issued an opinion reversing the district court's award of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs, vacating the district court's mandate and injunction, and remanding the case to the district court. Judge Raggi, writing for the panel, concluded that the plain language of the relevant statutes authorized the Attorney General to impose all three challenged conditions on Byrne grant applications. Judge Raggi found that these conditions help to enforce national immigration laws and policies and that they ensure that applicants "satisfy particular statutory grant requirements imposed by Congress and subject to Attorney General oversight." Additionally, Judge Raggi, relying on a Supreme Court decision in Arizona v. United States that made clear States may not pursue policies that undermine federal law, held that the challenged conditions intrude on the powers reserved to the States. Finally, Judge Raggi concluded that in imposing the challenged conditions, the Attorney General did not overlook their important detrimental effects so as to make their imposition arbitrary and capricious. 951 F.3d 84.

As of March 3, 2020, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment is pending before the district court and the case is ongoing.

Caitlin Kierum - 10/15/2019
Aaron Gurley - 03/03/2020


compress summary