article: This federal lawsuit, filed by the cities of Chelsea and Lawrence, Massachusetts, on Feb. 8, 2017, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 <a href="https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2017-01-30/pdf/2017-02102.pdf">Executive Order 13768</a>, dealing with immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary jurisdictions" and take enforcement action against any locality that impedes the federal government's immigration law. The plaintiffs, represented by private counsel and the Boston Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and Economic Justice, filed their complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The plaintiffs alleged that the Executive Order violated the Tenth Amendment by coercing cities to choose between losing federal funding and losing control of their municipal self-governance. The Executive Order does not include a clear definition of what it means to be a "sanctuary" jurisdiction, apart from referencing 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 plaintiffs alleged their own compliance with § 1373, but complained first that § 1373 is unconstitutional, and second, that Executive Order threatened their funding without advance notice by unclearly extending beyond § 1373. The plaintiffs alleged that the U.S. had begun to designate certain cities as "sanctuary jurisdictions" and that Chelsea and Lawrence stood to be designated as such. In order to improve cooperation between immigrant residents and municipal police, Chelsea designated itself a "sanctuary city" and Lawrence took similar actions. The plaintiffs explained that they therefore feared being labeled "sanctuary jurisdictions" under the Executive Order and thus losing federal grants. As small cities with large working-class immigrant populations, the plaintiffs feared the implications of such a loss of key funding for their municipal budgets, including for public services that have nothing to do with immigration. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that Chelsea and Lawrence comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, that § 1373 is an unconstitutional infringement on municipal and state self-government authority, and that the Executive Order violates the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. In addition, they claimed that the Executive Order violates the separation of powers by penalizing § 1373 violations without Congressional approval. The case was assigned to Judge George A. O'Toole Jr. On Apr. 10, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The defendants argued that they have taken no action against the cities pursuant to the executive order and that the cities cannot show they have been injured by the existence of the EO. Meanwhile, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on April 25, 2017, granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against operation of the Executive Order. See <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=15608">San Francisco v. Trump</a> for details. On May 2, the plaintiffs moved to stay the proceedings in light of the nationwide preliminary injunction, and the court entered a stay on May 4. The case is marked "administratively closed," which just means that it is on hold. The parties can inform the Court if they wish to resume litigation.
summary: This federal lawsuit, filed by the cities of Chelsea and Lawrence, Massachusetts, on Feb. 8, 2017, challenged President Trump’s Jan. 25, 2017 Executive Order dealing with immigration enforcement, which threatened to withhold federal funds from "sanctuary jurisdictions" and take enforcement action against any locality that impedes the federal government's immigration law. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the plaintiffs asked for a declaration that Chelsea and Lawrence comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, that § 1373 is an unconstitutional infringement on municipal and state self-government authority, and that the Executive Order violates the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's due process clause. In addition, they claimed that the Executive Order violates the separation of powers by penalizing § 1373 violations without Congressional approval. On April 25, 2017 the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted a nationwide preliminary injunction against operation of the Executive Order. See the case San Francisco v. Trump (3:17-cv-00485-WHO) for more details. On May 2, the plaintiffs moved to stay the proceedings in light of the nationwide preliminary injunction, and the court entered the stay. On Dec. 29, 2017, the case was administratively closed. The case remains closed.