City of Phila. v. Sessions
Decision Date | 13 March 2018 |
Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 17–3894 |
Citation | 309 F.Supp.3d 271 |
Parties | The CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Beauregard SESSIONS III, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Kirti Datla, Reedy C. Swanson, Daniel J.T. Schuker, Neal Katyal, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Washington, DC, Virginia A. Gibson, Alexander B. Bowerman, Jasmeet K. Ahuja, Sara A. Solow, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Judy Lee Leone, Robert C. Heim, Dechert LLP, Lewis Rosman, Sozi Pedro Tulante, City of Philadelphia Law Dept., Marcel S. Pratt, City of Philadelphia Law Department Chair, Litigation Group, Will W. Sachse, Dechert, Price & Rhoads, Philadelphia, PA, for Plaintiff.
Brad P. Rosenberg, Daniel Schwei, Rachael Lynn Westmoreland, Arjun Garg, James H. Percival, II, U.S Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Anthony St. Joseph, U.S. Attorney's Office, Philadelphia, PA, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM RE: MOTION TO DISMISS
In this action, Plaintiff City of Philadelphia, which has in place policies that "seek to foster trust" between immigrants and officers of the City, challenges the recent imposition by Defendant Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, Attorney General of the United States, of three immigration-related funding conditions on receipt of federal law enforcement aid under the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant ("JAG") program. (Am. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF 84.)
The City alleges that the Attorney General cannot legally or constitutionally condition JAG Program funds on 1) requiring federal immigration agents access to City detention facilities (the "Access Condition"); 2) providing the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") at least 48 hours' advance notice of the date and time of the release of any inmate about whom DHS has requested such information (the "Notice Condition"); and 3) certifying compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 ("Certification Condition"; collectively, the "Challenged Conditions"). The City asserts the following six counts in its Amended Complaint:
Count I asserts that the Attorney General acted ultra vires and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing the Challenged Conditions. (Am. Compl. ¶¶ 113–21, ECF 84).
Count II asserts that the imposition of the Challenged Conditions by the Attorney General violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the Challenge Conditions contravene the separation of powers. (Id. ¶¶ 122–31.)
Count III alleges that the Attorney General's imposition of the Challenged Conditions constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. (Id. ¶¶ 132–35.)
Count IV alleges that the Challenged Conditions are invalid under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution. (Id. ¶¶ 136–43.)
Count V asserts that the Challenged Conditions unconstitutionally seek to commandeer City officials into the enforcement of federal immigration law in violation of the Tenth Amendment. (Id. ¶¶ 144–50.)
Count VI seeks a declaration by this Court that the City is in compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, as constitutionally construed. (Id. ¶¶ 151–57.)
The City also seeks to enjoin the Challenged Conditions, asks this Court to declare that the Challenged Conditions are unconstitutional, and requests a writ of mandamus requiring the Attorney General to disburse the City's fiscal year 2017 Byrne JAG award.
For the reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Attorney General's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint.
The following facts are taken as true from the City's Amended Complaint. (ECF 84.) The federal funding program at issue in this case is the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (the "JAG Program" or the "Byrne Program"), which was formed in 2005 from a merger of the Edward Byrne Memorial Formula Grant Program and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. (Id. ¶ 57.) The Byrne JAG Program is a formula grant, whose authorizing statute, 34 U.S.C. § 10151, et seq. , allows states and localities to use grant awards for a wide variety of purposes, such as personnel, equipment, training, and other criminal justice needs. (Id. ¶ 59 (citing 34 U.S.C. § 10152.) ) Since the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program was created in 2005, the City has applied for, and received, awards each year. (Id. ¶ 4.) The City plans to use its FY 2017 funds to provide use-of-force training to officers, support collaborations with inner-city youth, and provide doses of naloxone
to Philadelphia police officers to counteract opioid overdoses. (Id. ¶ 66.)
In 2016, the Office of Justice Programs added a condition on Byrne JAG funds, applicable to fiscal year 2017 and thereafter, requiring applicant jurisdictions to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (the "Certification Condition"). (Id. ¶¶ 77–79.) 8 U.S.C. § 1373, entitled "Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service," prohibits local government and law enforcement officials from restricting the sharing of information with federal immigration officials regarding the citizenship status of any individual as follows:
Philadelphia certified its compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 on June 22, 2017. (Am. Compl. ¶ 11.)
In late July 2017, the Attorney General announced two new conditions on every grant provided by the JAG Program. (Id. ¶ 5.) The two new conditions require, first, that local authorities provide federal agents advance notice of the scheduled release from state or local correctional facilities of certain individuals suspected of immigration violations (the "Notice Condition"), and, second, that local authorities provide immigration agents with access to City detention facilities and individuals detained therein (the "Access Condition"). (Id. )
The Office of Justice Programs described the three new conditions applicable to JAG recipients as follows:
Philadelphia has a number of policies in place intended to "engender trust with the City's immigrant community" that are relevant to this case and the Challenged Conditions. (Am. Compl. ¶ 24.)
In 2001, the Philadelphia Police Department issued a memorandum prohibiting its officers from unnecessarily disclosing individuals' immigration status, subject to three exceptions: "(1) required by law, or (2) the immigrant requests, in writing, that the information be provided, to verify his or her immigration status, or (3) the immigrant is suspected of engaging in criminal activity, including attempts to obtain public assistance benefits through the use of fraudulent documents." (Mem. 01–06 at 1–2, ECF 1–3.) Memorandum 01–06 states also that (Id. at 2.)
In 2008, then-mayor Michael Nutter signed the "Confidentiality Order," Executive Order 08–09, which prevents city officers outside of law enforcement from "inquir[ing] about a person's immigration status unless: (1) documentation of such person's immigration status is legally required for the determination of program,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Colorado v. U.S. Dep't of Justice
...v. Attorney Gen. of the U.S. , 916 F.3d 276, 291 (3d Cir. 2019) (same), aff'g in part and vacating in part City of Philadelphia v. Sessions , 309 F. Supp. 3d 271 (E.D. Pa. 2018) ; City of Chicago v. Sessions , 888 F.3d 272, 287 (7th Cir. 2018) ("[T]he district court did not err in determini......
-
City of Chi. v. Barr
...2019) (same); City and Cty. of San Francisco v. Sessions , 349 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (same); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions , 309 F. Supp. 3d 271, 281–84 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (same); California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions , 284 F. Supp. 3d 1015, 1030-31 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (same).III. ......
-
City of Chi. v. Sessions
...Court notes that all of its sister courts in parallel cases have reached the same conclusion. See, e.g. , City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F.Supp.3d 271, 281–84 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (finding the Attorney General's imposition of the Conditions on the Byrne JAG grant was final); California ex......
-
Oregon v. Trump
...San Francisco v. Sessions , No. 17-cv-04642-WHO, 2018 WL 6267848, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018) (same); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions , 309 F. Supp. 3d 271, 279-80 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (addressing ripeness but not expressly reaching the issue of standing); City of Chicago v. Sessions , 321 F......
-
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - BYRNE JAG FUNDS AND IMMIGRATION: HOW STATUTORY INTERPRETATION HELPED PROTECT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS - CITY OF PROVIDENCE V. BARR.
...to thwart congressional will by canceling appropriations passed by Congress." Id. at 1232. (28) See City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F.Supp.3d 271, 281 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (holding no statutory authority for challenged conditions); City of Philadelphia, 916 F.3d at 284 (affirming lower cou......