This case is another response to efforts by the Trump Administration to strip law enforcement funding from “sanctuary” cities and states unless their governments agree to participate in federal immigration enforcement. The city of Chicago previously sued the Department of Justice over these conditions in 2017; details of that ongoing case can be found here.

The city of Chicago filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 12, 2018. The plaintiff, represented by its Department of Law and private attorneys, sued the U.S. Attorney General under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the All Writs Act, the mandamus statute, the Declaratory Judgment Act, and the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff claimed that immigration-related conditions imposed by the government on federal funding to the city were unauthorized by Congress, ultra vires, and in violation of principles of federalism. The plaintiff sought declaratory relief, as well as an injunction to prevent the government from imposing the conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which provides support for Chicago law enforcement. The case was assigned to Judge Leinenweber.

In its complaint, the plaintiff pointed out that this court had recently struck down many of the same conditions at issue here, referring to a permanent injunction that had been entered to prevent the conditions from being applied to Byrne JAG grants in the prior fiscal year. The plaintiff alleged that despite this injunction, the government was again attempting to impose unlawful immigration-related conditions on the Byrne JAG grants for fiscal year 2018. The plaintiff stated that three of the FY2018 conditions were materially identical to FY2017 conditions which had been set aside by the court. These conditions required grant recipients to: give the federal government 48-hour notice prior to an arrestee’s release; give federal immigration officials unlimited access to local police stations and law enforcement facilities; and comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which bars local governments from restricting their employees from sharing citizenship and immigration status information with federal immigration authorities. The plaintiff also alleged that the government added an additional unlawful condition for FY2018: requiring cities to certify that they will not publicly disclose federal law enforcement information in an attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection fugitives from justice or undocumented immigrants.

The plaintiff filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2018, addressing the issue of Attorney General Sessions’s resignation, which occurred in November. The plaintiff alleged that Matthew Whitaker’s assumption of Sessions’s duties violated federal law and the Appointments Clause. Furthermore, the plaintiff alleged that since the city received an award letter for its FY2018 Byrne JAG grant shortly after Whitaker took over, Whitaker could not impose the challenged grant conditions on Chicago, because he could not lawfully exercise the powers of the Attorney General.

As of February 27, 2019, the defendant has yet to respond to the complaint. The case is ongoing.

Sam Kulhanek - 02/27/2019


compress summary