article: This action, filed by the City of Los Angeles, California on Sept. 29, 2017, challenged the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)'s imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. The plaintiff, represented by its legal department and the law firm Covington & Burling, filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Los Angeles receives federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, both administered by the DOJ and its component agencies Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The latest DOJ requirements for FY2017 program funding imposed new conditions on recipient cities, including Los Angeles. One condition was compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and federal immigration authorities. The other two conditions required recipients to allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to access any correctional or detention facility and question suspected undocumented immigrants about their right to be in the U.S., and to provide DHS at least 48 hours advance notice of any noncitizen's scheduled release from custody. After several lawsuits challenged these conditions, the federal government was preliminarily enjoined from imposing them on Byrne JAG funding in <i><a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=16080">City of Chicago v. Sessions</a></i>. The DOJ continued to revise these conditions, but Los Angeles believed the revised requirements were ambiguous. Los Angeles alleged that accepting these conditions would force it to abandon its longstanding law enforcement policies, intended to improve cooperation between immigrant residents and municipal police. These policies restrict the city from seeking and disclosing information about residents' immigration status, as well as from honoring Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainer requests without an independent warrant or judicial determination of probable cause. Los Angeles explained its view that its policies in fact complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, but that the notice and access conditions were so ambiguous that the DOJ could continue to wrongly deny Los Angeles the funding. Additionally, the city believed that Congress did not intend these immigration-related conditions in either the Byrne JAG statute or the COPS statute. Los Angeles argued that the access and notification requirements would compel it to choose between either submitting to an unconstitutional federal enforcement agenda, or losing critical funds. The city contended that this violated the U.S. Constitution's separation of powers, the Spending Clause (by usurping Congress' ability to set conditions for funding), the Tenth Amendment (by usurping Los Angeles's power over its own municipal policy), and the Administrative Procedure Act (as arbitrary and capricious agency action). On the same day that it filed its complaint, Los Angeles also moved for a preliminary injunction, pointing to what it described as the irreparable injury from the loss of critical public-safety funds. The case was assigned to Judge Manuel L. Real on Oct. 2, 2017. On Oct. 4, 2017 the parties moved for an expedited briefing schedule, because the DOJ expected to make FY2017 COPS funding decisions on or around Oct. 30. Judge Real granted the motion and planned for a hearing to be held on Oct. 23. The DOJ, in its response to the city's complaint, argued against the preliminary injunction, asserting that the city lacked standing (as it would not have been a successful COPS applicant anyway in FY2017, regardless of the immigration-related factors); that COPS' immigration-related factors were consistent with the program's purposes under the APA; and that the DOJ had broad discretion to make the grants. Los Angeles withdrew its motion for preliminary injunction on Oct. 16, 2017 because the DOJ had disclosed that Los Angeles' award application for this cycle would have been unsuccessful even without the immigration-related considerations. However, Los Angeles maintained its claims and request for permanent relief, because the DOJ continued to attach the immigration-related conditions to the COPS program. On Nov. 21, 2017 Los Angeles then moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the DOJ's use of COPS funding conditions violated the separation of powers, the Spending Clause, and the APA as arbitrary and capricious. On Feb. 1, five counties, seven cities, and the District of Columbia filed amici briefs supporting Los Angeles. The DOJ also moved for partial summary judgment on Jan. 12, 2018 arguing that Los Angeles' claims were non-justiciable or, in the alternative, that the funding conditions were consistent with the governing statutes, the Spending Clause, and the APA. Judge Real held a motion hearing on Feb. 28, 2018, and on Apr. 11, 2018 issued an order granting Los Angeles' partial summary judgment motion and denying the DOJ's. First, Judge Real held that the case was not moot because Los Angeles' harm was capable of repetition if the City applied for a FY2018 grant. As to the substantive claims, Judge Real held that the challenged conditions exceeded DOJ's legal authority (as federal power infringing on the state police power), in violation of the Spending Clause (because Congress did not unambiguously condition grant receipt on local compliance with federal authorities for a matter not reasonably related to COPS's goal), and in violation of the APA (as arbitrary and capricious without a reasonable basis). Judge Real then permanently enjoined the DOJ from imposing the challenged conditions nationwide. In doing so, Judge Real held that Los Angeles would suffer irreparable harm in future grant cycles against its competitors, making a nationwide injunction necessary. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On July 12, 2019, the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in favor of Los Angeles. 929 F.3d 1163. The Court rejected the plaintiff's claims that the DOJ's use of certain factors in scoring applicants for COPS grants violated the Spending Clause or the Tenth Amendment. The Court also held that the DOJ did not exceed its statutory authority or act arbitrarily and capriciously. The plaintiffs requested rehearing, but the Ninth Circuit denied to rehear the appeal. On December 23, 2019, the district court dissolved and vacated the April 11 injunction in accordance with the Ninth Circuit's ruling. Meanwhile, back in the district court, Judge Real had stayed Los Angeles' Byrne JAG claims pending one of the following events: (a) the nationwide injunction issued in City of Chicago v. Sessions is dissolved, in which case proceedings on these claims would resume; or (b) the case results in a nationwide permanent injunction of the challenged Byrne JAG conditions, after all opportunities for appeal were exhausted. On July 18, 2018, the plaintiff filed a motion for a preliminary injunction of the Byrne JAG funding conditions. On Sept. 13, 2018, Judge Real granted Los Angeles' application for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the notice and access conditions imposed upon the Byrne JAG grant. The court held that the statutes did not grant the Attorney General authority to impose such conditions. The court also held that Los Angeles faced irreparable harm because it was forced to make "an impossible choice: either it must certify compliance with unconstitutional and unlawful directives that impinge on the City's sovereignty, damage community trust, and harm public safety, or it will lose congressionally authorized Byrne JAG funding." The government appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit, which then docketed the appeal as No. 18-56292. Four days later, the district court denied the government's motion to dismiss. On October 31, 2019, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction against the DOJ's use of the notice and access conditions on recipients of Byrne JAG grants. 941 F.3d 931. The Court found that the DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the conditions. On December 31, 2019, the case was reassigned to Judge Josephine L. Staton. In light of the Ninth Circuit finding that the DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the notice and access conditions on the Byrne JAG grants, Judge Staton entered final judgment for Los Angeles regarding the notice and access claim on March 20, 2020. Judge Staton converted the September 2018 preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing the notice and access conditions. In addition, the Court entered partial summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the COPS claims and dismissed these claims with prejudice. The defendants appealed the final judgment in favor of Los Angeles on the notice and access claims in May 2020, docket 20-55545. The parties then began mediation, and the Ninth Circuit stayed the appeal pending mediation. This case is ongoing.
summary: This lawsuit, filed by the City of Los Angeles on Sept. 29, 2017 challenged the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)'s imposition of immigration-related conditions on federal funding to the city. Plaintiff filed its complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Los Angeles receives federal funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) Program and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program, both administered by DOJ and its component agencies Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA). The latest DOJ requirements for FY2017 program funding imposed new conditions on recipient cities, including Los Angeles. One condition was compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which provides that a local government entity cannot prohibit or restrict communication between government entities or officials and federal immigration authorities. The other two conditions required recipients to allow the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to access any correctional or detention facility and question suspected undocumented immigrants about their right to be in the U.S., and to provide DHS at least 48 hours advance notice of any noncitizen's scheduled release from custody. After several lawsuits challenged these conditions, the federal government was preliminarily enjoined from imposing them on Byrne JAG funding in City of Chicago v. Session. DOJ continued to revise these conditions, but Los Angeles believed the revised requirements were ambiguous. Both parties moved for partial summary judgment, and the court granted Los Angeles' motion. On April 11, 2018, Judge Real held that the challenged conditions exceeded DOJ's legal authority (as federal power infringing on the state police power), in violation of the Spending Clause (because Congress did not unambiguously condition grant receipt on local compliance with federal authorities for a matter not reasonably related to COPS's goal), and in violation of the APA (as arbitrary and capricious without a reasonable basis). Judge Real then permanently enjoined DOJ from imposing the challenged conditions nationwide. The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On Sept. 13, 2018, Judge Real granted Los Angeles' application for a preliminary injunction. The court held that the statutes in question gave "no indication that DOJ is authorized to add civil immigration conditions" and that Congress did not grant the attorney general authority to impose such conditions. The court also held that Los Angeles faced irreparable harm because it was forced to make "an impossible choice: either it must certify compliance with unconstitutional and unlawful directives that impinge on the City's sovereignty, damage community trust, and harm public safety, or it will lose congressionally authorized Byrne JAG funding." The government appealed this order to the Ninth Circuit, which then docketed the appeal as No. 18-56292. Four days later, the district court denied the government's motion to dismiss. The court held that the City had plausibly stated claims that the new funding conditions were ultra vires, and also violated the separation of powers, the spending clause, and the APA. This case is ongoing.