City of Albuquerque v. Barr, 515 F.Supp.3d 1163

Background

The City of Albuquerque, an "Immigrant Friendly City," adopted policies limiting inquiries and disclosures about immigration status and refusing to assist federal immigration enforcement absent judicial warrants.
Albuquerque applied for and received a FY2018 Crime Gun Intelligence Center (CGIC) grant from the Byrne JAG reserved funds; DOJ attached Special Conditions 49–51 requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373, 1644 and barring disclosure that would aid harboring in violation of § 1324.
Albuquerque accepted the award but struck the immigration-related conditions; DOJ insisted the conditions remain and would enforce them, prompting Albuquerque to sue in April 2020 seeking injunctive, declaratory, and mandamus relief (claims: ultra vires, separation of powers, APA, spending-clause, Tenth Amendment).
Plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction to prohibit enforcement of Special Conditions 49–51, compel release of the FY2018 CGIC funds, prevent clawbacks if the city spent local funds, and extend the grant period.
The district court treated the requested relief as a disfavored mandatory injunction, found Albuquerque would likely succeed on its ultra vires claim (DOJ exceeded statutory authority and conflicted with 34 U.S.C. § 10228), found irreparable harm (delay plus a "Hobson’s choice" undermining community trust), and granted a preliminary injunction ordering removal of the conditions and immediate release of funds with an extended period.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DOJ exceeded statutory authority by imposing immigration-related grant conditions (ultra vires)	Conditions are unrelated to CGIC grant purpose and exceed DOJ/OJP authority under Byrne JAG statutes	DOJ may place special conditions (34 U.S.C. §10102(a)(6)) and applicants must certify compliance with "all other applicable Federal laws" (34 U.S.C. §10153(A)(5)(D))	Court: Likely success for Plaintiff—conditions conflict with statutory limits and with §10228; Seventh Circuit precedent persuasive that DOJ exceeded authority
Whether Albuquerque faces irreparable harm without injunctive relief	Release conditioned on compliance would destroy trust with immigrant community and delay crime-reduction programs, harm not compensable by money	Delay and choice to spend local funds mitigate urgency; constitutional harms are inter-branch, not personal rights	Court: Irreparable harm established—program delay and Hobson’s choice to forgo trust or funds suffice; plaintiff’s filing delay was reasonable
Standard for injunction (disfavored/mandatory) and burden of proof	Relief should be viewed as preserving grant award and not requiring ongoing supervision	DOJ argued the injunction is mandatory, changes status quo, and grants full relief—so heavier burden applies	Court: Relief is mandatory and alters status quo; heavier burden applies, but Plaintiff met it by a strong showing on merits and harms
Balance of harms and public interest (including remedies sought)	Harm to public safety from losing program and to community trust outweighs any minimal government harm; requests release of funds and removal of conditions	DOJ has strong interest in enforcing immigration laws and ensuring compliance with grant conditions	Court: Balance and public interest favor injunction; ordered removal of Special Conditions 49–51, release of funds, and extension of grant period

Key Cases Cited

City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) (recognizes "Hobson's choice" and irreparable harm from conditioned Byrne JAG funds)
City of Chicago v. Barr, 961 F.3d 882 (7th Cir. 2020) (rejects DOJ's proffered statutory bases for immigration-related Byrne JAG conditions; persuasive on ultra vires and separation-of-powers grounds)
City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 941 F.3d 931 (9th Cir. 2019) (upheld injunction against immigration-based Byrne JAG conditions; emphasizes public-safety and trust harms)
City of Philadelphia v. Attorney General, 916 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2019) (holds §1373 conflicts with prohibition on federal control over local police; supports ultra vires claim)
State of New York v. Department of Justice, 951 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020) (contrary circuit ruling upholding challenged conditions)
Aposhian v. Barr, 958 F.3d 969 (10th Cir. 2020) (distinguishes individual-rights constitutional harms from inter-branch allocation harms for irreparable-harm analysis)
City of Arlington v. FCC, 569 U.S. 290 (2013) (ultra vires review asks whether agency action exceeded what Congress permitted)