Immigration and Citizenship

City and County of San Francisco v. Barr; California v. Barr

In City and County of San Francisco v. Barr and California v. Barr, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is considering whether the United States Attorney General can impose funding conditions on local jurisdictions that receive certain federal funding in order to coerce those jurisdictions into adopting immigration policies preferred by President Trump.

In Brief

Attorney General Jeff Sessions sought to impose funding conditions on local jurisdictions that receive certain federal funding in order to coerce those jurisdictions into adopting immigration policies preferred by President Trump.
Congress neither imposed the challenged conditions on grant recipients, nor authorized the Attorney General to impose them. Congress designed the program to ensure that states and localities would have maximum flexibility.
Sessions's coercive conditions are not only at odds with this flexibility, but also fundamental separation-of-powers principles. The Framers recognized the dangers of concentrated power, and thus gave the authority to impose conditions on the receipt of federal funds to Congress.

Case Summary

Like many localities around the country, the City and County of San Francisco and the state of California receive federal funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) Program to help them enhance public safety as they see fit. Byrne JAG grant amounts are calculated using a statutory formula keyed to the jurisdiction’s population and violent crime rate, and there are minimal limits on the public safety and criminal justice uses to which funds may be allocated. Despite this, in July 2017, United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions sought to mandate new funding conditions for every Byrne JAG grant in an attempt to coerce recipients into changing their immigration policies. The City and County of San Francisco and the state of California sued Sessions in federal district court challenging his authority to impose the new conditions.

In August 2018, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Northern District of California on behalf of members of Congress in support of the City and County of San Francisco and California. On October 5, 2018, the district court granted California and San Francisco’s motions for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the Attorney General’s effort to impose new conditions on Byrne JAG grantees.  The district court’s order cited our amicus brief, noting that “Congress intentionally entrusted state and local jurisdictions with the discretion to tailor funds to their needs, recognizing the need for ‘flexibility to spend [federal] money for programs that work for them rather than to impose a “one size fits all” solution.’”

As we did in the district court, in May 2019, CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of members of Congress in support of the City and County of San Francisco and California. In our brief, we explain that in establishing the Byrne JAG grant program, Congress neither imposed the challenged conditions on grant recipients, nor authorized the Attorney General to impose them. Congress designed the program as a formula grant to ensure that states and localities would have maximum flexibility in determining how to best improve public safety in their respective jurisdictions. The Attorney General’s coercive conditions are not only at odds with this flexibility but also undermine public safety by decreasing trust and cooperation between the police force and crime victims and witnesses in many neighborhoods. Moreover, as we also explain, the statute on which the Attorney General principally relies does not concern either the Byrne JAG program or the Attorney General and thus provides no support for what he is attempting to do here. Finally, we argue that the Attorney General’s attempt to administratively write into law new grant conditions runs afoul of fundamental constitutional principles. The Framers recognized the dangers of concentrated power in the hands of a single government branch, and thus gave the authority to impose conditions on the receipt of federal financial assistance to Congress. The Attorney General’s coercive actions cannot be squared with the constitutional separation-of-powers principles or the Framers’ decision to give Congress the power of the purse.

Case Timeline

  • August 22, 2018

    CAC files amicus brief in the district court

    N.D. Cal. Amicus Brief
  • September 5, 2018

    The district court hears oral argument

  • October 5, 2018

    The district court issues its decision

  • May 29, 2019

    CAC files amicus brief in the Ninth Circuit

    9th Cir. Amicus Brief
  • December 2, 2019

    The Ninth Circuit hears oral arguments

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
November 14, 2019

PODCAST (National Constitution Center): Can the Trump Administration End DACA?

We The People
Two years ago, the Trump administration decided to end Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)...
Immigration and Citizenship
November 12, 2019

RELEASE: Trump Administration Tries to Convince SCOTUS to Take Responsibility for Catastrophic Consequences of Rescinding DACA

“If President Trump wants to make the choice to destroy lives, as Justice Sotomayor put...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Immigration and Citizenship
November 5, 2019

High court to weigh Trump’s ending of program for young, undocumented immigrants

Capital News Service
The Supreme Court is due to hear arguments next week over the constitutionality of President...
Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Supreme Court

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California; Trump v. NAACP; and McAleenan v. Vidal

In three consolidated cases, Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, Trump v. NAACP, and McAleenan v. Vidal, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Trump Administration’s decision to end the Deferred Action for...
Immigration and Citizenship
October 4, 2019

RELEASE: CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS FILE BIPARTISAN AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DACA IN THE SUPREME COURT

“President Trump’s claim that the law made him take away DACA’s protections is completely false. The...
By: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Senator Richard Durbin, Representative Zoe Lofgren
Immigration and Citizenship
September 11, 2019

Symposium: The DACA cases may be the next big test for the Roberts Court

SCOTUSblog
Earlier this year, President Donald Trump made news when he suggested, repeatedly, that he views the Supreme...
By: Brianne J. Gorod, Dayna Zolle