City & County of San Francisco v. Donald Trump
897 F.3d 1225
9th Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiffs: City & County of San Francisco and County of Santa Clara challenged Executive Order 13768 §9(a), which directs the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to withhold federal grants from jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. §1373” (so-called sanctuary jurisdictions).
- EO §9 also directs OMB to catalog all federal grant money received by sanctuary jurisdictions; EO contains a general proviso that it be implemented “consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.”
- District court granted summary judgment to the Counties and entered a permanent nationwide injunction enjoining enforcement of §9(a) as unconstitutional; government appealed.
- Ninth Circuit majority: Counties had standing and the controversy was ripe; held EO §9(a) unlawfully usurped Congress’s Spending/Appropriations power (Separation of Powers) because it would withhold grant funds without congressional authorization; affirmed summary judgment.
- Court declined to defer to DOJ’s post‑hoc May 2017 Memorandum (which narrowed EO’s reach) as inconsistent with the EO’s plain text and because it was a litigation‑driven, intra‑agency interpretation; remanded to district court to reconsider the nationwide scope of the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing & ripeness to challenge EO §9(a) | Counties: loss of federal funds is imminent and concrete; public statements and prior conditioning of grants show real threat. | Government: EO is aspirational; enforcement uncertain and may never target plaintiffs. | Held: Counties have standing; case ripe under Ninth Circuit Thomas factors given public statements, past conditioning, and likely harm. |
| Separation of Powers / Spending Clause: may President/Exec. withhold Congress‑appropriated grants absent Congress? | Counties: EO would reallocate/withhold funds without congressional authorization, violating Congress’s exclusive power of the purse. | Government: EO merely directs agencies to condition certain grants and is limited by “consistent with law” savings clause. | Held: EO §9(a) unlawfully intrudes on Congress’s spending power; affirmed summary judgment for Counties. |
| Interpretation of EO and effect of “consistent with law” / DOJ Memorandum | Counties: EO’s text and context (OMB data call, “except as deemed necessary for law enforcement”) threaten broad defunding; DOJ Memo is post‑hoc litigation dodge. | Government: “consistent with law” limits EO; DOJ Memorandum construes EO narrowly to apply only to DOJ/DHS grants already conditioned on §1373. | Held: EO’s text reasonably reads as threatening broad withholding; savings clause cannot rescue EO’s plain command; DOJ Memorandum is a post‑hoc, non‑binding narrowing inconsistent with EO and public statements. |
| Scope of relief: nationwide injunction appropriate? | Counties: nationwide relief necessary to protect all similarly situated jurisdictions and ensure full relief. | Government: injunction should be limited to plaintiffs/California; no adequate record to justify nationwide reach. | Held: Injunctive relief warranted for the Counties, but the record does not support a nationwide injunction; vacated nationwide scope and remanded for narrower tailoring. |
Key Cases Cited
- Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952) (presidential power at its lowest ebb when acting contrary to Congress; Jackson’s tripartite framework)
- South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987) (Congress may attach conditions to federal grants under the Spending Clause)
- Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998) (President may not unilaterally amend or repeal statutes; limits on executive power over legislation)
- Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007) (standing principles; concrete, imminent injury and redressability)
- Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000) (ripeness/enforcement threat factors for pre‑enforcement challenges)
- King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480 (2015) (agency/administrative deference limits where issue has deep economic and political significance)