385 F. Supp. 3d 160
D.R.I.2019Background
- The DOJ conditioned FY2017 Byrne JAG grant awards on recipients complying with three immigration-related conditions: Access (federal agents' access to local jails), Notice (notice of scheduled release of suspected aliens), and a Section 1373-related certification (no restriction on exchanging immigration status information).
- City of Providence and City of Central Falls received FY2017 Byrne JAG awards but DOJ withheld disbursement pending acceptance of those conditions; Providence planned to hire a bilingual interpreter with the funds; Central Falls relied on the funds post-bankruptcy.
- The Cities sued, alleging the conditions exceeded statutory authority and violated separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, the Spending Clause, and alleging ultra vires and arbitrary-and-capricious agency action.
- The court treated the threshold question—whether statutory authority authorized the Attorney General to impose the conditions—as dispositive and relied heavily on reasoning from the Third Circuit in City of Philadelphia.
- The court concluded the Attorney General lacked statutory authority to impose the Access, Notice, and Section 1373 conditions and granted the Cities' partial summary judgment.
- The court further granted mandamus/APA relief ordering DOJ to disburse the FY2017 funds and directed the parties to draft a permanent injunction preventing imposition of the three conditions on these Cities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Attorney General had statutory authority under Byrne JAG to impose Access/Notice/1373 conditions | DOJ exceeded statutory authority; conditions not authorized by statute | Byrne JAG and related provisions delegate broad authority to impose grant conditions | Held for plaintiff: no statutory authorization; AG exceeded authority |
| Whether §10153(a)(4)/(5) authorize Access/Notice unrelated to grant programmatic use | Those provisions are limited to programmatic/financial reporting and coordination about grant-funded activities | These subsections allow conditioning recipients beyond program use, including access/notice | Held for plaintiff: subsections do not authorize Access/Notice conditions unrelated to grant use |
| Whether §1373 is an “applicable Federal law” authorizing the §1373 condition | §1373 is not an “applicable law” within the statute's scope and the phrase must have independent meaning | The statute’s "applicable laws" clause requires compliance with §1373 | Held for plaintiff: §1373 not incorporated by Byrne JAG as DOJ contends; cannot be used to justify condition |
| Whether mandamus/APA relief and injunction are appropriate to compel payment and bar conditions | Cities need funds; DOJ has mandatory duty to allocate and disburse Byrne JAG funds; withholding was unlawful delay | DOJ argued authority to condition and withhold; did not justify delay as excused by administrative burdens | Held for plaintiff: mandamus/APA relief granted to compel disbursement; permanent injunction to bar the three conditions as to these Cities |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Philadelphia v. Attorney Gen. of United States of America, 916 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2019) (rejected similar statutory-authority arguments and held Attorney General lacked authority to impose these conditions)