965 F.3d 753
9th Cir.2020Background
- The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program funds state and local criminal-justice programs; DOJ’s FY2017 solicitations added three new conditions: an Access Condition, a Notice Condition, and a Certification Condition tied to 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
- Access Condition: DHS personnel may access local detention facilities to interview individuals about immigration status. Notice Condition: jurisdictions must give DHS at least 48 hours’ advance notice of the scheduled release of aliens. Certification Condition: applicants’ chief legal officers must certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373.
- Plaintiffs (City & County of San Francisco and State of California) are sanctuary jurisdictions whose local laws limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; they sued to block DOJ from enforcing the three conditions and sought declaratory relief on § 1373’s meaning.
- The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs, declared the conditions unlawful and § 1373 inapplicable to plaintiffs’ laws, and issued a nationwide permanent injunction barring DOJ from enforcing the Challenged Conditions.
- On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the Access and Notice Conditions, held that plaintiffs’ laws do not violate § 1373 as narrowly construed, upheld injunctive relief against denying Byrne funds to plaintiffs, but vacated the injunction’s nationwide scope and limited relief to California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. DOJ authority to impose Access and Notice Conditions | DOJ lacks statutory authority; conditions exceed Byrne program powers | DOJ asserts authority under 34 U.S.C. § 10102(a)(6) and other Byrne provisions | Held: DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose Access and Notice; injunction upheld (following City of Los Angeles v. Barr) |
| 2. Meaning/scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (Certification Condition) | §1373 is narrow and covers only information about immigration/citizenship status; plaintiffs’ sanctuary laws do not conflict | DOJ argues §1373 reaches broader information (e.g., release dates, contact info), rendering plaintiffs noncompliant | Held: §1373 is narrowly construed to cover only immigration status; plaintiffs’ laws do not violate §1373; Certification Condition cannot be used to deny Byrne funds |
| 3. Validity of district court’s alternative APA/constitutional/spending-clause rulings | Plaintiffs argued alternative statutory and constitutional defects supported relief | DOJ argued conditions complied with Spending Clause, APA, and separation-of-powers limits | Held: Court affirmed on statutory §1373 and lack of authority grounds; did not reach alternate constitutional/APA grounds because narrower holdings sufficed |
| 4. Scope of injunction (nationwide vs. geographic limitation) | Nationwide injunction necessary because conditions affect jurisdictions nationwide and other localities’ interests | DOJ argued injunction should be limited to plaintiffs or California | Held: Nationwide injunction was overbroad and an abuse of discretion; remedial relief limited to California’s geographic boundaries |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2019) (DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the Access and Notice Conditions)
- United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) (§ 1373 construed narrowly to cover only immigration/citizenship status)
- California v. Azar, 911 F.3d 558 (9th Cir. 2018) (remedies must be tailored to the nature and geographic scope of the violation)
- Los Angeles Haven Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644 (9th Cir. 2011) (injunctions should be no more burdensome than necessary to provide relief)
- East Bay Sanctuary Covenant v. Trump, 950 F.3d 1242 (9th Cir. 2020) (distinguishing plaintiffs that operate without neat geographic boundaries when assessing nationwide relief)
- Hills v. Gautreaux, 425 U.S. 284 (1976) (remedial relief must be tailored to the constitutional violation)