929 F.3d 1163
9th Cir.2019Background
- The COPS Hiring Program (part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act) funds hiring/rehiring officers for "community-oriented policing;" DOJ administers the competitive grants and sets application guidelines and scoring factors.
- In FY2017 DOJ added bonus scoring for applicants that (1) selected an "illegal immigration" focus area (encouraging 287(g) partnerships, information-sharing, honoring detainers) and (2) submitted a Certification of Illegal Immigration Cooperation (promising facility access and advance release notice to DHS).
- Los Angeles applied in 2017, declined the immigration focus and Certification because of its local policies, did not receive funding, and sued to enjoin DOJ’s use of those two scoring elements.
- The district court held for Los Angeles, enjoined the practices; DOJ appealed. The Ninth Circuit considered standing and mootness and found the case capable of repetition yet evading review and that Los Angeles had standing based on a slight competitive disadvantage.
- On the merits, the Ninth Circuit reversed: it held DOJ’s scoring for immigration-related focus/Certification did not violate the Spending Clause or Tenth Amendment, did not exceed DOJ’s statutory authority under the COPS statute, and was not arbitrary and capricious under the APA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spending Clause / coercion | DOJ’s immigration-related bonus points function as unconstitutional conditions/coercion on federal grants and are unrelated to program purpose | Bonus points are a noncoercive incentive; immigration cooperation is related to public safety and within DOJ’s discretionary scoring | Rejected plaintiff: incentives not coercive and related enough to grant’s public-safety purpose (Dole/NFIB framework applied) |
| Statutory authority / scope (Chevron) | DOJ exceeded statutory authority by treating immigration cooperation as part of "community-oriented policing" beyond Congress’s intent | Congress delegated broad discretion to DOJ to promulgate guidelines and define community-oriented policing; DOJ’s interpretation is reasonable | Rejected plaintiff: agency action falls within broad statutory delegation and is a reasonable interpretation entitled to deference |
| APA — arbitrary and capricious | DOJ failed to consider evidence or supply adequate reasoned explanation tying immigration preferences to public safety; decision contradicted studies Los Angeles cited | DOJ provided a rational explanation that removing/remediating removable criminal aliens and partnering with federal authorities can further public safety; evidence cited by LA does not doom DOJ’s rational basis | Rejected plaintiff: DOJ articulated a rational connection and did not act counter to the administrative record |
| Justiciability — standing and mootness | (implicit) challenges could be moot or plaintiff lacked injury | DOJ argued past cycle complete and LA lacked sufficient injury | Court: not moot (capable of repetition, evading review); LA has standing based on slight competitive disadvantage |
Key Cases Cited
- Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (discusses limits on spending power and coercion)
- South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (Spending Clause relatedness and permissible inducement)
- Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. 1 (need for clear notice of conditions on federal funds)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (agency deference when statute leaves gap)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (recognition that immigration can implicate public safety)
- Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29 (arbitrary and capricious standard)
- Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc., 556 U.S. 208 (agency interpretation need not be best, only reasonable)
- Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep’t of Educ., 550 U.S. 81 (deferring to agency where statutory language ambiguous)
- Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville, 508 U.S. 656 (competitive injury can support standing)
- United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures, 412 U.S. 669 (standing may be met by slight injury)