On July 18, 2018, the City of New York filed a complaint against the Attorney General of the U.S. and the Department of the Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The City alleged that the defendants imposed new immigration-related conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and separation of powers. The City, represented by private counsel, sought to enjoin defendants from imposing new conditions on congressionally approved federal funding for the JAG program because these conditions are arbitrary and capricious. The City further sought a declaration that Section 1373 of Title 8 of the United States Code ("Section 1373") is unconstitutional, or, to the extent that Section 1373 lawfully applies to the JAG program, a declaration that the City's laws and policies comply with Section 1373.

On July 20, 2018, DOJ released the FY 2018 JAG award solicitation and sought to impose new immigration-related conditions on grantees in addition to those imposed on FY 2017 grantees. Any recipient that accepts the FY 2018 award would also need to certify that it would not violate 8 U.S.C. § 1644, a federal statute prohibiting restrictions on sharing information about an individual’s immigration status with federal authorities. In light of this, the City filed an amended complaint on August 6 to seek additional relief.

On August 17, the City filed a motion for partial summary judgment. On September 14, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss or alternatively, motion for partial summary judgment. On November 30, Judge Edgardo Ramos granted the plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment and denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss and motion for partial summary judgment. The court held that the conditions were not in accordance with the APA, violated the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, and violated the constitutional separation of powers. However, the motion for summary judgment with respect to the Spending Clause was denied as moot. The defendants were enjoined from imposing or enforcing the conditions.

On January 28, 2019, the defendants filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Back in district court, the City again filed a motion for partial summary judgment on March 1, 2019. The case is ongoing.

Sichun Liu - 03/08/2019


compress summary