City & County of San Francisco v. Merrick Garland, 42 F.4th 1078

Byrne JAG is a federal formula grant (34 U.S.C. §10152) for state/local criminal-justice programs; DOJ added immigration‑related Conditions for FY2017–2018 grants.
The Conditions required certification of compliance with federal provisions 8 U.S.C. §1373 and §1644 and imposed information‑sharing and notification requirements; DOJ interpreted §1373 broadly.
California, San Francisco, Oregon, and Portland sued; district courts held the Conditions exceeded DOJ’s statutory authority and enjoined enforcement, and also declared §§1373/1644 facially unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment.
The Government did not appeal the statutory‑authority rulings that the Conditions exceeded DOJ power, but did appeal the constitutional rulings regarding §§1373/1644.
This panel (9th Cir.) affirmed the injunctions insofar as they rested on lack of statutory authority, but held the facial Tenth Amendment challenges to §§1373/1644 were either not ripe or moot in light of this Court’s precedents and vacated those constitutional rulings, remanding to dismiss.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOJ had statutory authority to impose the FY2017–2018 Byrne JAG Conditions	DOJ lacked congressional authority to condition Byrne funds on the immigration‑related requirements	DOJ argued it could impose the Conditions as special grant terms and under program authority	Affirmed district courts: DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose those Conditions; injunctions barring withholding Byrne funds on that basis upheld (gov’t did not appeal this part)
Whether 8 U.S.C. §1373 and §1644 are facially unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment	§§1373/1644 commandeer state sovereignty and are facially unconstitutional	Federal interest; statutes valid; challenge not ripe/moot given intervening precedent and savings clauses	Not decided on merits: Court held facial challenges not justiciable (either unripe or moot) and vacated district courts’ constitutional declarations; remanded with instructions to dismiss
Ripeness / Mootness of the facial challenges	Plaintiffs: concrete sovereign injuries from DOJ’s interpretation and enforcement pressure made the challenge ripe	Defendants: after this Court’s construction of §1373 and DOJ’s non‑enforcement, no live controversy; thus not ripe/moot	Court: Plaintiffs’ asserted injuries were resolved by United States v. California and by DOJ’s actions; challenges are either unripe or moot, so court lacks jurisdiction to decide constitutionality

United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019) (narrow construction of §1373 to immigration‑status information and central precedent here)
City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2019) (limits on agency authority to impose special grant conditions)
Barr II (City & Cty. of San Francisco v. Barr), 965 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2020) (applied California to hold local laws complied with §1373)
City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018) (context on Congress’s rejection of tying Byrne grants to immigration policy)
United States v. Munsingwear, 340 U.S. 36 (1950) (vacatur of lower court judgment when case becomes moot on appeal)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (Article III standing requirements)
United Pub. Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75 (1947) (limitations on judicial review of congressional acts absent concrete interference)
Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw, 528 U.S. 167 (2000) (voluntary cessation exception to mootness explained)