405 F.Supp.3d 748
N.D. Ill.2019Background
- Byrne JAG is the DOJ Office of Justice Programs formula grant program for state/local criminal-justice funding; acceptance requires agreeing to Solicitation conditions.
- Chicago received Byrne JAG grants annually but sued after the AG attached new immigration-related conditions to FY2017 and again to FY2018 awards.
- The FY2018 award contained four “repeat” conditions (notice to DHS of releases; federal access to local jails; certification of compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373; certification of compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1644) and two “new” conditions (a broad harboring prohibition and an additional certification requiring compliance with various federal immigration statutes).
- Chicago’s Amended Complaint alleges ultra vires action, separation-of-powers and Spending Clause violations, anticommandeering of §§1373/1644, APA arbitrary-and-capricious claims, and a pre-enforcement declaratory challenge under 8 U.S.C. §1324; AG moved to dismiss; Chicago moved for summary judgment.
- The Court again found the challenged conditions to be final agency action, granted summary judgment to Chicago on the repeat conditions and on the additional certification and harboring conditions as ultra vires, denied dismissal of the §1324 declaratory claim (Count VI), dismissed other counts as moot, and entered a permanent injunction (nationwide scope stayed pending appeal).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Validity of repeat conditions (notice, access, §1373/§1644 compliance) | AG lacks statutory authority; conditions coerce local policy and commandeer state functions | AG preserves prior arguments and disagrees with lower-court rulings | Court: summary judgment for Chicago — notice and access ultra vires; §1373 and §1644 violate anticommandeering; compliance conditions unlawful |
| Additional certification requirement (certify no local law impedes federal statutes) | No Congressional delegation; listed statutes apply to federal actors only so city cannot "comply" with them; ultra vires | AG invoked delegation statutes (34 U.S.C. §§10102/10153) but offered no new defense here | Court: summary judgment for Chicago — requirement ultra vires (no statutory authority) |
| Harboring condition (ban public disclosures that "indirectly" harbor aliens) | Overbroad, not authorized by statute, exceeds AAG powers; arbitrary and capricious | AG cites 34 U.S.C. §§10102(a)(2),(4),(6) (liaison and catch‑all authority) | Court: summary judgment for Chicago — harboring condition ultra vires; APA/Spending-Clause claims rendered moot by ultra vires ruling |
| Pre-enforcement declaratory challenge re §1324 (Count VI) | High-level DOJ/ICE statements create credible threat; Chicago reasonably fears prosecution and has constitutional interests (free speech, anticommandeering) | No specific threat to Chicago; no prosecution initiated; unripe | Court: denial of dismissal — claim ripe; Count VI remains pending |
| APA final agency action / ripeness of challenges | Imposition of conditions on awards is consummated agency action with legal consequences (Bennett test) | AG argued no final administrative determination regarding awards | Court: conditions constitute final agency action and are reviewable |
| Remedy and scope: permanent injunction and nationwide relief | Injunction needed to prevent recurring unlawful conditions; seeks program‑wide (nationwide) relief | AG did not contest injunction elements but opposed nationwide scope | Court: permanent injunction granted against challenged conditions for all future Byrne JAG awards; nationwide scope issued but stayed pending Seventh Circuit appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (prior summary judgment finding notice/access ultra vires and §1373 unconstitutional)
- City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) (affirming preliminary injunction and limiting AG authority to impose immigration‑related grant conditions)
- City of Philadelphia v. Attorney Gen. of United States, 916 F.3d 276 (3d Cir. 2019) (concluding Congress did not empower AG to impose notice and access conditions)
- Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154 (U.S. 1997) (final agency action test under the APA)
- Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149 (U.S. 2014) (pre‑enforcement standing/ripeness standards)
- Whitman v. American Trucking Ass'ns, 531 U.S. 457 (U.S. 2001) (requirement of clear congressional delegation for agency action)
- Gonzales v. Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (U.S. 2006) (courts resist inferring major policy authority from vague statutory text)
- Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (U.S. 2018) (anticommandeering doctrine)
- eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388 (U.S. 2006) (factors for permanent injunction)