Immigration and Citizenship

City of Chicago v. Barr

In City of Chicago v. Barr, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 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

The City of Chicago, like many localities across the nation, receives federal funding from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) Program to help the City enhance public safety as it sees 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 cities into changing their immigration policies. The City of Chicago brought suit against Sessions in federal district court challenging his authority to impose the new conditions. The district court granted a preliminary injunction, and the government appealed to the Seventh Circuit.

CAC filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the Seventh Circuit on behalf of members of Congress in support of Chicago. In our brief, we explained 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 in cities like Chicago by decreasing trust and cooperation between the police force and crime victims and witnesses in many neighborhoods. Moreover, as we explained, 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 argued 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.

In April 2018, a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit unanimously struck down the Attorney General’s coercive funding conditions and upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction. Echoing arguments made in CAC’s brief, the court condemned the Attorney General’s use of “the sword of federal funding to conscript state and local authorities to aid in federal civil immigration enforcement” and explained that “the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds.” The Court also acknowledged the crucial responsibility of the judiciary to act as a check on “usurpation of power,” noting that “we are a country that jealously guards the separation of powers, and we must be ever-vigilant in that endeavor.”

On remand, the district court granted a permanent injunction, but stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction. The DOJ appealed again. In November, CAC again filed an amicus brief on behalf of members of Congress in support of Chicago, reiterating the statutory and separation-of-powers arguments we made in our prior brief.

Case Timeline

  • January 4, 2018

    CAC files amicus brief

    7th Circuit Amicus Brief
  • January 19, 2018

    Seventh Circuit hears oral argument on the preliminary injunction

  • April 19, 2018

    Seventh Circuit issues its ruling

    Seventh Circuit Decision
  • November 15, 2018

    CAC files amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs who are seeking a permanent injunction

    7th Circuit Amicus Brief
  • April 10, 2019

    Seventh Circuit hears oral arguments on the permanent injunction

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