City of Chi. v. Sessions, Case No. 17 C 5720

CourtUnited States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
Writing for the CourtHarry D. Leinenweber, Judge
Citation321 F.Supp.3d 855
Parties The CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Beauregard SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.
Decision Date27 July 2018
Docket NumberCase No. 17 C 5720

321 F.Supp.3d 855

The CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff,
v.
Jefferson Beauregard SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant.

Case No. 17 C 5720

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division.

Signed July 27, 2018


321 F.Supp.3d 860

Harnaik Singh Kahlon, Laura A Kleinman, Matthew Charles Crowl, Ronald S. Safer, Tal Cohen Chaiken, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila, LLP, Andrew W. Worseck, Edward N. Siskel, Justin Anthony Houppert, City of Chicago, Department of Law, Chicago, IL, Ari Holtzblatt, Pro Hac Vice, Ari J. Savitzky, Pro Hac Vice David W. Ogden, Jack E. Starcher, Pro Hac Vice, Jamie S. Gorelick, Pro Hac Vice, Molly Jennings, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Bridget Fahey, Pro Hac Vice, Washington, DC, Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux, Pro Hac Vice, Debo P. Adegbile, Pro Hac Vice, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, New York, NY, for Plaintiff.

Stephen Joseph Buckingham, Arjun Garg, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, W. Scott Simpson, U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, Springfield, IL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge

321 F.Supp.3d 861

This case involves the overlap, and potential conflict, between core areas of state and federal power: the state's traditional police powers and the federal government's broad, undoubted power over immigration. In order to advance federal immigration policies, the Attorney General attached several new immigration-related conditions to a longstanding federal grant which provides funds to local and state police departments. Those immigration-related conditions conflict with Chicago's policy goals of promoting cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities and ensuring access to essential city services for all city residents regardless of citizenship status. Chicago brought suit to enjoin the Attorney General from attaching those conditions to the grant funds.

Before the Court is the Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint in its entirety and the City of Chicago's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Counts I, II, and V. The Court addresses both below.

I. BACKGROUND

In addition to reciting here the most relevant facts, the Court also incorporates those facts previously described in its earlier ruling. See City of Chicago v. Sessions , 264 F.Supp.3d 933, 937-40 (N.D. Ill. 2017), aff'd, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018), en banc reh'g granted and vacated in part by Order, No. 17-2991 (7th Cir. June 4, 2018), Dkt. No. 128.

The dispute centers around the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (the "Byrne JAG grant"), a federal grant named after a fallen New York City police officer which awards funds to states and local jurisdictions to support criminal justice initiatives for personnel, equipment, training, and other community services. See 34 U.S.C. § 10152(a). The Byrne JAG program distributes grant funds by a statutorily-defined formula based on a state's population and the number of violent crimes reported within that jurisdiction in the past year. See 34 U.S.C. § 10156. To receive funds under the program, the would-be grantee must submit an application and comply with all conditions outlined in the Solicitation document provided by the Attorney General. (See 34 U.S.C. § 10153 ; see, e.g. , FY 2017 Local Solicitation, Ex. T to Pl.'s Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 157-20.) The City of Chicago and its neighboring localities have received Byrne JAG funds every year since 2005. In 2016, Chicago used those funds to buy police vehicles and to support the efforts of non-profit organizations working in its high crime communities. (See Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Statement of Undisputed Material Facts ("Facts") ¶ 14, Dkt. No. 168; Sachs Decl. ¶ 4, Dkt. No. 154.) The funds at issue now were originally earmarked to be distributed in 2017, but this litigation ensued. Should Chicago receive those 2017 funds, the City intends to expand its use of "SpotShotter" acoustic surveillance technology, which allows officers to pinpoint the location of gun shots across the City and thus respond more quickly. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶ 15, Dkt. No. 168.)

The grant conditions causing Chicago umbrage are related to federal immigration enforcement. In 2016, the Attorney General determined that various state and local policies of withholding information and other cooperation from federal immigration

321 F.Supp.3d 862

authorities were frustrating the federal government's immigration-related goals. (See May 31, 2016 Office of Inspector General Mem., Ex. H to Def.'s Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 140-8.) Citing public safety concerns, the Attorney General announced that the Department of Justice ("DOJ") would award Byrne JAG grants only to localities that: share certain immigration-related information with federal immigration agencies, allow immigration agents access to local detention facilities, and provide notice before releasing certain undocumented individuals. (See DOJ Press Release, Ex. B to Compl., Dkt. No. 1-2.) In this suit, Chicago challenges all three of these new conditions (hereafter, "the Conditions"):

1. The "Access Condition" requires that Byrne JAG recipients permit personnel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") to access any detention facility to meet with undocumented immigrants and inquire as to their right to be or remain in the United States.

2. The "Notice Condition" requires that Byrne JAG recipients provide DHS at least 48 hours advance notice of the scheduled release date and time of an alien in the jurisdiction's custody whenever DHS requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien upon release. The Attorney General later amended this Condition to clarify that "[i]n the event that ...the scheduled release date and time for an alien are such as not to permit the advance notice [of scheduled release]...it shall not be a violation of this condition to provide only as much advance notice as practicable."

3. The "Compliance Condition" requires that Byrne JAG recipients certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a federal statute that bars local governments from restricting the sharing of immigration status information with federal law enforcement.

(See FY 2017 Local Solicitation, Ex. T to Pl.'s Request for Judicial Notice, Dkt. No. 157-20; Example Byrne JAG award documents, Exs. F, G to Jennings Decl., Dkt. No. 158.) The Attorney General added the Notice and Access Conditions for the first time in FY 2017, but the Compliance Condition also applied the previous year. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 17-18.)

According to Chicago, these Conditions conflict with longstanding City policy of ensuring access to essential city services regardless of a resident's citizenship status and of promoting cooperation between local law enforcement and immigrant communities. (See Compl. ¶ 1, Dkt. No. 1.) Chicago's local policies protecting immigrant rights date back to 1985, when they were first embodied in executive orders and then eventually codified. (Def.'s Resp. to Pl.'s Facts ¶¶ 4-8, Dkt. No. 168.) The City's Welcoming City Ordinance, enacted in 2012, encapsulates its current policy. (Id. ¶¶ 7-8.) Though Chicago's policy and others like it are commonly referred to as "sanctuary city policies," the Seventh Circuit has recognized the inaptness of that term. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d at 281 (noting the term is "commonly misunderstood" and does not accurately describe the effect of such policies).)

The Welcoming City Ordinance reflects both the City's determination that effective police work relies on willing community assistance and its belief that the "cooperation of the city's immigrant communities is essential to prevent and solve crimes and maintain public order, safety and security in the entire city." Chicago, Ill. Muni. Code § 2-173-005. The City intended the Welcoming City Ordinance to clarify both the

321 F.Supp.3d 863

communications and enforcement relationship between the City and the federal government as well as the specific conduct City employees are prohibited from undertaking, given the City's view that such prohibited conduct would "significantly harm[ ] the city's relationship with immigrant communities." Id.

Specifically, the Ordinance prohibits all City agents and agencies from: requesting or disclosing information about an individual's immigration status, id. §§ 2-173-020, -030; detaining anyone based solely on their immigration status or an ICE detainer, id. § 2-173-042(a); and spending on-duty time "responding to ICE inquiries or communicating with ICE regarding a person's custody status or release date," unless the responding City employee is "acting pursuant to a legitimate law enforcement purpose that is unrelated to the enforcement of a civil immigration law," id. § 2-173-042(b). Notably, these prohibitions do not apply to certain classes of potentially dangerous individuals, including known gang members and those with outstanding criminal warrants, felony convictions, or pending felony charges. Id. § 2-173-042(c); see also Chicago Police Department ("CPD")'s Special Order S06-14-03, Ex. F to Pl.'s Request for Judicial Notice,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 practice notes
  • States York v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 18 Civ. 6471 (ER)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 30, 2018
    ...in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018), and similarly stayed the injunction's nationwide scope. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). In a related case also in the Northern District of Illinois, the City of Evanston and the U.S. Conference of Mayors obtained ......
  • City of Chi. v. Barr, No. 18-2885
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 29, 2020
    ...but also determined that a third condition—the compliance condition—was unconstitutional as well. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The court extended the injunction to apply to all FY 2017 grant recipients program-wide, but in light of our prior grant of en......
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, Case No. 17-cv-04642-WHO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 5, 2018
    ...summary judgment, this time finding that Section 1373 was unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. See City of Chicago v. Sessions , 321 F.Supp.3d 855, 865-66 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The court also issued a permanent nationwide injunction but stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction becau......
  • City of Chi. v. Barr, Case No. 18 C 6859
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • September 19, 2019
    ...relevant facts here, the Court incorporates those facts previously described in its earlier ruling. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The Byrne JAG program is the primary source of federal criminal justice funding available to state and local governments......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • States York v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, 18 Civ. 6471 (ER)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York
    • November 30, 2018
    ...in Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018), and similarly stayed the injunction's nationwide scope. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). In a related case also in the Northern District of Illinois, the City of Evanston and the U.S. Conference of Mayors obtained ......
  • City of Chi. v. Barr, No. 18-2885
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
    • April 29, 2020
    ...but also determined that a third condition—the compliance condition—was unconstitutional as well. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The court extended the injunction to apply to all FY 2017 grant recipients program-wide, but in light of our prior grant of en......
  • City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, Case No. 17-cv-04642-WHO
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • October 5, 2018
    ...summary judgment, this time finding that Section 1373 was unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. See City of Chicago v. Sessions , 321 F.Supp.3d 855, 865-66 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The court also issued a permanent nationwide injunction but stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction becau......
  • City of Chi. v. Barr, Case No. 18 C 6859
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 7th Circuit. United States District Court (Northern District of Illinois)
    • September 19, 2019
    ...relevant facts here, the Court incorporates those facts previously described in its earlier ruling. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The Byrne JAG program is the primary source of federal criminal justice funding available to state and local governments......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • A DOCTRINE WITHOUT EXCEPTION: CRITIQUING AN IMMIGRATION EXCEPTION TO THE ANTICOMMANDEERING RULE.
    • United States
    • University of Pennsylvania Law Review Vol. 169 Nbr. 1, December 2020
    • December 1, 2020
    ...on compliance with federal immigration regulations through a certification of compliance). (4) See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855, 872 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (finding that [section] 1373 constitutes unconstitutional commandeering), aff'd sub nom. City of Chicago v. Barr, 957 F.3......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT