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

More from Immigration and Citizenship

Immigration and Citizenship
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Grace v. Barr

In Grace v. Barr, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is considering the legality of new rules established by the Trump administration that gut asylum protections for immigrants fleeing violence...
Immigration and Citizenship
May 3, 2019

Countering Trump’s Anti-Immigrant Attacks

From a shake-up at the Department of Homeland Security to facilitate tougher immigration enforcement to...
By: Brianne J. Gorod
Immigration and Citizenship
January 16, 2019

RELEASE: Rep. Maloney Calls for Legislative Solution to Block Census Citizenship Question

Representative Carolyn B. Maloney
WASHINGTON, DC  — Congresswoman Carolyn. B. Maloney (D-NY), co-chair of the House Census Caucus and author...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 16, 2019

House Dems put spotlight on Census prep

Federal Computer Week
After a federal court invalidated the Trump administration's move to add a citizenship question to...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2019

Census Ruling Injects Uncertainty Into Supreme Court Next Steps

Bloomberg Law
Federal district court prohibited Trump administration from adding citizenship question to 2020 census Supreme Court...
Immigration and Citizenship
January 15, 2019

RADIO (PRI): Federal judge rules against citizenship questions on the census

Public Radio International
New York Federal Judge Furman issued a 277-page decision not to allow the Trump administration’s push...