JAG grant lawsuits against the federal government (2017-2018)

Immigration in the U.S.
DACA and DAPA
Admission of refugees
Birthright citizenship

On July 25, 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced two new requirements for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) and said applicants who did not meet the requirements would be ineligible to receive funds. The DOJ grants JAG funds annually to states and cities to support local law enforcement.^[1][2]

The new conditions required applicants to comply with federal laws on immigration, particularly through local communication with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding undocumented immigrants.^[1] Specifically, the DOJ said:

1. Grantees must honor requests from federal immigration officials to give 48-hour notice of the release of certain detainees.
2. Grantees must grant federal immigration officials access to local jails and prisons to interrogate prisoners.^[2]

In announcing the new requirements, Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) said local jurisdictions needed to partner more closely with federal immigration authorities as part of the Justice Department’s strategies to reduce violent crime.^[2] The DOJ sent letters to 29 jurisdictions that they believed did not comply with the new requirements. Click here for a list of the 29 jurisdictions.

Several cities and states responded to the new conditions by filing lawsuits against the federal government. They argued the conditions were unconstitutional.

In March 2019, the DOJ announced that it had cleared for sending or sent the grant funding to 28 out of 29 jurisdictions the department had identified as out of compliance with the requirements. As of March 2019, Oregon had not received or been cleared to receive the funds.^[3] A federal judge ruled in August 2019 that the federal government could not withhold funds from the city of Portland or the state of Oregon.^[4]

California[edit]

San Francisco[edit]

2018 lawsuit[edit]

On August 22, 2018, San Francisco filed another lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's policy of withholding JAG funding from cities and counties that do not comply with federal immigration policies.^[5] The city first filed a lawsuit in 2017.

2017 lawsuit[edit]

The city of San Francisco and the state of California filed coordinated lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging the federal government's policy of withholding JAG funds from sanctuary jurisdictions. San Francisco filed its lawsuit on August 11 and California followed suit on August 14.^[6]

The lawsuit against Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the DOJ argued the Trump administration's policy was unconstitutional because it did not appear in federal law nor through any act of Congress.^[7]

San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera (D) said the new policy would compel local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration laws. California Attorney General Xavier Becerra (D) said the federal government's policy violated state residents' constitutional rights and would reduce the effectiveness of local police. He also said California cities received $28 million in federal grants in 2017.^[7]

On October 5, 2018, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick, an Obama appointee, granted summary judgment for San Francisco and for California, ruling the federal government could not withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities and staying the DOJ's policy pending appeal in the Ninth Circuit. Orrick said the DOJ's requirements were unconstitutional and violated separation of powers. He issued a nationwide injunction against the requirements.^{[8][9][10][11]}

On December 3, the DOJ filed a motion to appeal Orrick's ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.^[12]

Los Angeles, California[edit]

2018 lawsuit[edit]

On August 22, 2018, the city of Los Angeles filed another lawsuit challenging the DOJ's withholding of JAG funds for the 2018 fiscal year.^[13] On October 31, 2019, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the DOJ cannot add special conditions to JAG funds. In the majority opinion, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote that the imposition of these conditions "would be antithetical to the concept of a formula grant."^[14]

2017 lawsuit[edit]

On September 29, 2017, Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer (D) filed a lawsuit against the federal government's JAG requirements in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.^[15] A press release from Feuer's office said Los Angeles received over $1 million in JAG funding per year from 1997 to 2017.^[16]

Los Angeles argued the DOJ's new requirements were ambiguous. According to the University of Michigan School of Law, "Los Angeles alleged that accepting these conditions would force it to abandon its longstanding law enforcement policies, intended to improve cooperation between immigrant residents and municipal police."^[15]

On September 13, 2018, U.S. District Judge Manuel Real issued a preliminary injunction against the federal government's withholding of JAG grants from Los Angeles. Real ruled the government did not have the authority to place conditions on the funds.^[17] President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) nominated Real to the court in 1966.

Feuer called the ruling "a win for public safety in Los Angeles" and a confirmation "that our nation’s system of checks and balances works."^[1]

U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions (R) disagreed. In 2017, he said, "So-called 'sanctuary' policies make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes."^[17]

On July 15, 2019, the 9th Circuit ruled 2-1 in favor of the Trump administration. It overturned the nationwide injunction issued by Judge Real in September 2018.^[18]

Illinois[edit]

Chicago[edit]

2018 lawsuit[edit]

On October 12, 2018, Chicago filed a lawsuit in the federal district court of the Northern District of Illinois accusing the DOJ of withholding JAG grants for the 2018 fiscal year.^[19] Click here to read the complaint.

2017 lawsuit[edit]

On August 7, 2017, the city of Chicago filed a lawsuit challenging the DOJ's new conditions for JAG grants. The city, which expected to receive $3.2 million in JAG grant funding for new police vehicles and equipment in 2017, argued the conditions were unconstitutional. According to its filing, the grants were based on a statutory formula created by Congress and neither the president nor the Justice Department had the constitutional authority to alter Congress' requirements.^[20] Click here to read the full complaint.

On August 15, 2018, U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber, a Reagan appointee, granted final judgment in favor of Chicago.^[21] Leinenweber had previously ruled on July 27 that the federal government's attempts to withhold JAG funding as well as the underlying law used to justify their efforts were unconstitutional. The July 27 ruling struck down a federal law referred to as Section 1373, which mandated that local governments share information on immigration status with the federal government.^[22] Leinenweber issued a preliminary injunction that applied to Chicago, as opposed to nationwide.^[21]

The litigation in this case, City of Chicago v. Sessions, shifted between the lower district court—the Northern District of Illinois—and the higher circuit court—the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.^[21]

On September 15, 2017, Leinenweber had ordered a preliminary injunction blocking the DOJ's new JAG requirements. In his ruling, Leinenweber said Chicago "would suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not entered." The injunction applied nationwide because Leinenweber found the issues Chicago raised could also apply to other cities.^[23][24] The federal government appealed the injunction to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.^[25]

On April 19, 2018, a three-judge panel from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the September 15 preliminary injunction.^[26][27] On June 26, however, the court limited the injunction to only Chicago, rather than nationwide.^[21]

State of Illinois[edit]

On July 12, 2018, Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (D) filed a lawsuit asking the court to compel the DOJ to distribute JAG funding immediately. Madigan argued the DOJ was punishing Illinois by withholding the funds.^[28] Click here to read the full complaint.

Pennsylvania[edit]

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania[edit]

On February 15, 2019, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled in City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General of the United States that the Trump administration could not deny funds to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, because of its immigration policies. Judge Marjorie Rendell, a Bill Clinton appointee, wrote in the opinion that "the Attorney General did not have statutory authority to impose" the JAG grant compliance requirements.^[29] Click here to read the ruling.

Philadelphia Mayor James Kenney (D) said, "Philadelphia is proud to be a city that welcomes all of those who seek safe haven, and this ruling affirms our right to do so. The conditions imposed by the DOJ were an unconscionable attempt to bully the city and its residents into changing our policies."^[30]

Steven J. Stafford of the DOJ responded that the DOJ was "disappointed with the ultimate outcome of the decision. We are closely evaluating this decision and considering our options."^[31]

The 3rd Circuit's ruling upheld an earlier ruling from Judge Michael Baylson, a George W. Bush appointee, of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. On June 6, 2018, Baylson ruled that Philadelphia was entitled to receive prompt JAG funds and that the Trump administration's attempt to withhold funds from the city "violate[d] statutory and constitutional law." The ruling followed an amended complaint from Philadelphia that the DOJ was withholding JAG funding.^[32][33]

Philadelphia first filed a lawsuit against the DOJ's new JAG grant compliance requirements on August 20, 2017. On November 15, 2017, Baylson issued a memorandum opinion and order granting a motion for a preliminary injunction preventing the federal government from denying federal JAG funds to the city.^[34]

Baylson held Philadelphia was "likely to succeed in its claims that the Department of Justice’s conditions are improper under settled principles of the Spending Clause, the Tenth Amendment, and principles of federalism."^[34] In response, the federal government appealed the case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

On February 15, 2019, the appellate court rejected the federal government's appeal and affirmed Baylson's ruling. The court's opinion stated that the attorney general has limited authority to review or withhold funds, and that "[a]llowing the attorney general to withhold all funds because a jurisdiction does not certify compliance with any federal law of the attorney general’s choosing undermines the predictability and consistency embedded in the program’s design, thus turning the formula grant 30 into a discretionary one.”^[35]

Multiple states and New York City[edit]

Six states and New York City sue federal government in sanctuary city dispute[edit]

On November 30, 2018, federal district Judge Edgardo Ramos of the Southern District of New York ruled that the federal government could not compel cities and states to cooperate with federal immigration authorities to receive federal public safety (JAG) grants. Ramos, an Obama appointee, ordered the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to disburse the funds without conditions.^[36] Click here to read Ramos' ruling.

On July 19, 2018, six states—New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia—filed a joint lawsuit and New York City filed its own lawsuit challenging the DOJ's requirement that states participate in federal immigration enforcement in order to receive JAG grants. The lawsuit asked the court to rule that the federal government's policy was unconstitutional. The states said they could lose up to $25 million in funds.^[37][38]

See also[edit]

• Sanctuary jurisdictions
• Federal policy on sanctuary jurisdictions, 2017-2018
• Sanctuary jurisdiction policies by state
• Sanctuary policy preemption conflicts between the federal and local governments

Footnotes[edit]