1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF – Case Nos. 

17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv-00574-WHO

LOUISE H. RENNE (SBN 36508)

JONATHAN V. HOLTZMAN (SBN 99795)

LINDA M. ROSS (SBN 133874)

lross@publiclawgroup.com

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

1220 Seventh Street, Suite 300

Berkeley, CA 94710

Ph. (510) 995-5800

Fx. (415) 678-3838

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of United States 

Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, Attorney General 

of the United States, DOES 1-100,

Defendants

Case No. 17-cv-00485-WHO

Case No. 17-cv-00574-WHO

(Related cases)

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION BY CALIFORNIA 

CITIES AND COUNTIES FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

AS AMICI CURIAE IN OPPOSITION TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

MOTION FILED BY COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, 

CITY OF BERKELEY, CITY OF DAVIS, CITY 

OF EAST PALO ALTO, CITY OF FREMONT, 

COUNTY OF MARIN, COUNTY OF 

MONTEREY, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, 

CITY OF OAKLAND, CITY OF RICHMOND, 

CITY OF SALINAS, CITY OF SAN JOSE, CITY 

OF SANTA CRUZ, AND CITY OF SANTA ROSA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States of America, JOHN F. KELLY, in his 

official capacity as Secretary of the United 

States Department of Homeland Security, 

DANA J. BOENTE, in his official capacity as 

Acting Attorney General of the United States, 

MARK SANDY, in his official capacity as 

Acting Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants

Date: July 12, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick, Ctrm. 2

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Action Filed: January 31, 2017

Date: July 12, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick, Ctrm. 2

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Action Filed: February 3, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

1

CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES’ MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv-00574-WHO

This motion is brought by the following California cities and counties: County of Alameda, City 

of Berkeley, City of Davis, City of East Palo Alto, City of Fremont, County of Marin, County of 

Monterey, City of Mountain View, City of Oakland, City of Richmond, City of Salinas, City of San Jose, 

City of Santa Cruz, and City of Santa Rosa. These cities and counties respectfully move for leave to file 

an amicus curiae brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss filed by the government. A copy of the 

proposed brief is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 

The Court previously granted Amici leave to file a brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motions for 

preliminary injunction. The instant brief demonstrates that, notwithstanding the Attorney General’s 

memorandum, California cities and counties, and those nationwide, still are at risk of being targeted as 

“sanctuary jurisdictions,” and denied funds, under the lawless and arbitrary Executive Order. 

As established in Amici’s brief in support of the preliminary injunction, California cities and 

counties rely on federal funds to provide a wide variety of essential services. Amici recently or will soon 

enact balanced budgets for the coming fiscal year July 2017 through June 2018. In doing so, they were 

able to rely on the preliminary injunction, which enjoined the President’s Executive Order. 

The Attorney General’s memorandum attempts to rescue the Executive Order by purporting to 

limit its scope. But the Attorney General’s memorandum cannot override the Executive Order, has no 

force of law or credibility, and itself creates uncertainty. Accordingly, the government still threatens to 

deny federal funds to Amici and others in retaliation for conduct that is plainly legal or that has yet to be 

articulated.

For these reasons, Amici respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file the brief attached 

hereto as Exhibit A.

Dated: June 28, 2017 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

By: /s/ Linda M. Ross

LINDA M. ROSS

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

PROOF OF SERVICE

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on June 28, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the 

Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the e-mail addresses denoted 

on the Electronic Mail Notice List.

Date: June 28, 2017 /s/ Linda M. Ross

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

1220 Seventh Street, Suite 300

Berkeley, CA 94710

Telephone: (510) 995-5800

Facsimile: (415) 678-3838

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 3 of 10
EXHIBIT A

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv-00574-

WHO

LOUISE H. RENNE (SBN 36508)

JONATHAN V. HOLTZMAN (SBN 99795)

LINDA M. ROSS (SBN 133874)

lross@publiclawgroup.com

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

1220 Seventh Street, Suite 300

Berkeley, CA 94710

Ph. (510) 995-5800

Fx. (415) 678-3838

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

JOHN F. KELLY, Secretary of United States 

Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, Attorney General 

of the United States, DOES 1-100,

Defendants

Case No. 17-cv-00485-WHO

Case No. 17-cv-00574-WHO

(Related cases)

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS

FILED BY AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA 

CITIES AND COUNTIES – COUNTY OF 

ALAMEDA, CITY OF BERKELEY, CITY OF 

DAVIS, CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO, CITY OF 

FREMONT, COUNTY OF MARIN, COUNTY OF 

MONTEREY, CITY OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, 

CITY OF OAKLAND, CITY OF RICHMOND, 

CITY OF SALINAS, CITY OF SAN JOSE, CITY 

OF SANTA CRUZ, AND CITY OF SANTA ROSA

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States of America, JOHN F. KELLY, in his 

official capacity as Secretary of the United 

States Department of Homeland Security, 

DANA J. BOENTE, in his official capacity as 

Acting Attorney General of the United States, 

MARK SANDY, in his official capacity as 

Acting Director of the Office of Management 

and Budget, and DOES 1-50,

Defendants

Date: July 12, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick, Ctrm. 2

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Action Filed: January 31, 2017

Date: July 12, 2017

Time: 2:00 p.m.

Judge: Hon. William H. Orrick, Ctrm. 2

450 Golden Gate Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94102

Action Filed: February 3, 2017

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-1-

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv00574-WHO

I. INTRODUCTION

Amici cities and counties of California filed a brief in support of the motions for preliminary 

injunction filed by the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco (“Plaintiffs”). In 

response to those motions, this Court rightfully entered a nationwide injunction against enforcement of 

the President’s Executive Order on “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Amici now file this brief in opposition to 

the federal government’s motion to dismiss. The government claims that the Attorney General’s limiting 

memorandum resolves all legal issues. Amici strongly disagree. The blatant illegality and threat of 

irreparable harm remain.

II. ARGUMENT

As established in Amici’s brief in support of the preliminary injunction, California cities and 

counties rely on federal funds to provide a wide variety of essential services, including low income 

housing, centers and clinics for low income residents, social services such as Head Start, job training, 

public transit, emergency services, community policing and criminal justice services. Federal funds 

provide a significant percentage of city and especially county budgets.

Amici recently enacted, or are in the final stages of enacting, balanced budgets for the coming 

fiscal year July 2017 through June 2018. In doing so, they were able to rely on the preliminary 

injunction, which enjoined the President’s Executive Order. 

The Attorney General’s memorandum attempts to rescue the Executive Order by purporting to 

limit the Order to: (1) certain Department of Justice grants and unspecified Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) grants (and not all “federal grants” as stated in the Order), and (2) violations of 8 U.S.C. 

1373 (and not any “statute, policy or practice that prevents or hinders the enforcement of federal law” as 

stated in the Order). 

But nothing in the Attorney General’s memorandum rescues the Executive Order from illegality 

or changes the harm being faced by Amici. The government still threatens to deny federal funds to 

Amici and others in retaliation for conduct that is plainly legal or that has yet to be articulated. The 

threat remains for the following reasons.

The Attorney General’s memorandum does not, and cannot, override the President’s Executive 

Order. Accordingly, the Executive Order’s sweeping directives remain along with the potential for 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-2-

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv00574-WHO

enforcement. If the government truly believed that the Executive Order is of limited legality, as 

described in the Attorney General’s memorandum, the President should withdraw the Executive Order. 

The President is well aware of this option, which he pursued in the “travel ban” case, where he withdrew 

and then narrowed his original executive order. In contrast here, the President’s refusal to withdraw or 

revise the “sanctuary jurisdiction” Executive Order is evidence that his administration does not intend to 

limit its enforcement to the situations proposed by the Attorney General’s memorandum.

The Attorney General’s memorandum also is at odds with the statements by the President and the 

Attorney General. As detailed in Plaintiffs’ briefs, even after the President took the oath of office, the 

President and his surrogates, including the Attorney General, repeatedly threatened to cripple “sanctuary 

jurisdictions” by denying all federal funding. These statements are further and compelling evidence that 

the administration’s intent, and possible actions, are not bound by the Attorney General’s memorandum. 

A belated memorandum drafted by Justice Department attorneys, crafted to defend a lawsuit, cannot 

negate statements by elected and appointed officials.

Additionally, the President lacked legal authority to issue the Executive Order, and therefore there 

is no legal authority to support the Attorney General’s rewrite of the General Order. Youngstown Sheet 

& Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 586 (1952) (president’s executive order “must stem either from an 

act of Congress or from the Constitution itself”). As demonstrated by Plaintiffs, Congress controls 

federal spending and Congress has not placed any conditions on federal grants that would deny grant 

money to “sanctuary jurisdictions” that fail to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 or any other federal law. 

Neither the Attorney General’s memorandum nor the government’s briefs identify a single act of 

Congress that conditions federal grant money on compliance. In fact, the Plaintiffs demonstrated that 

Congress previously refused to enact any such restrictions. 

Finally, the Attorney General’s memorandum, even if implemented, leaves open the possibility of 

illegal conduct by the government against Amici. 

• The memorandum does not purport to bind the Department of Homeland Security, which the 

Executive Order also tasked with ensuring “that jurisdictions that willfully refuse to comply with 

8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdiction) are not eligible to receive Federal grants ....” (Executive 

Order, 9(a).) Amici include recipients of DHS grants for a wide variety of emergency 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-3-

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv00574-WHO

preparedness. These grant funds have no nexus to immigration enforcement, and thus even 

Congress could not withhold them. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207-208 (1987) 

(conditions on federal grants must be related "to the federal interest in particular national projects 

or programs”).

• The memorandum does not clarify what constitutes a “willful” violation of 8 U.S.C. 1373. 

Section 1373 prohibits a state or local jurisdiction from precluding its personnel from 

communicating with federal authorities concerning the immigration or citizenship status of an 

individual. The memorandum leaves the government’s interpretation uncertain. Is Section 1373 

to be limited to its text, or is something more required? This uncertainty threatens Amici, who 

include recipients not only of DHS grants, but also of Justice Department grants that aid local law 

enforcement. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. at 207 (“if Congress desires to condition the receipt 

of federal funds, it ‘must do so unambiguously . . . , enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice 

knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation’”).

• The memorandum does not address civil immigration detainers, which Amici are not required to 

honor and which, if honored, may create Fourth Amendment liability. E.g. Morales v. 

Chadbourne, 793 F.3d 208, 215-218 (1st Cir. 2015). The Executive Order suggested that 

immigration detainers were a litmus test for compliance. The Attorney General’s memorandum 

does not disavow such a test and Amici are left to wonder whether detainers are still an issue. 

Again eligibility for multiple federal grants may be involved.

Accordingly, even with its purported limitation of the Executive Order, the Attorney General’s 

memorandum leaves in place a policy that is either outright illegal or unconstitutionally vague.

III. CONCLUSION

Despite the eleventh hour issuance of the Attorney General’s memorandum, the Executive 

Order’s illegal and coercive power remains. The President has not withdrawn the Executive Order, the 

Attorney General’s memorandum has no force of law or credibility, and the memorandum itself 

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-4-

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv00574-WHO

continues the uncertainty about what is required of cities and counties. Accordingly, Amici ask that this 

Court deny the government’s motion to dismiss. 

Dated: June 28, 2017

RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

By: /s/ Linda M. Ross

LINDA M. ROSS

Attorneys for Amici Curiae

Additional Counsel for Amici Curiae

DONNA R. ZIEGLER

County Counsel, County of Alameda

Office of the County Counsel

1221 Oak Street, Suite 450

Oakland, CA 94612

Ph. (510) 272-6700

Email: donna.ziegler@acgov.org

HARVEY LEVINE

Fremont City Attorney

City Attorney’s Office

3300 Capitol Ave., Bldg. A

Fremont, CA 94538

Ph. (510) 284-4030

Email: HLevine@fremont.gov

Attorney for County of Alameda Attorney for City of Fremont

ZACH COWAN

City Attorney, City of Berkeley

Berkeley City Attorney’s Office

2180 Milvia Street

Berkeley, CA 94701

Ph. (510) 981-6950

Email: zcowan@ci.berkeley.ca.us

BRIAN E. WASHINGTON

County Counsel, County of Marin

Office of the County Counsel

3501 Civic Center Dr., Ste. 275

San Rafael, CA 94903

Ph. (415) 473-6117

Email: BWashington@marincounty.org

Attorney for City of Berkeley Attorney for County of Marin

HARRIET STEINER

City Attorney, City of Davis

Best Best & Krieger, LLP

500 Capitol Mall, Ste. 1700

Sacramento, CA 95814

Ph. (916) 551-2821

Email: Harriet.Steiner@bbklaw.com

CHARLES J. MCKEE

County Counsel, County of Monterey

Office of the County Counsel

168 West Alisal St., 3rd Flr.

Salinas, CA 93901

Ph. (831) 755-5045

Email: mckeecj@co.monterey.ca.us

Attorney for City of Davis Attorney for County of Monterey

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RENNE SLOAN 

HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP

Attorneys at Law

-5-

BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CALIFORNIA CITIES AND COUNTIES – Case Nos. 17-cv-00485-WHO and 17-cv00574-WHO

RAFAEL ALVARADO

City Attorney, City of East Palo Alto

East Palo Alto City Attorney’s Office

2415 University Avenue

East Palo Alto, CA 94303

Ph. (650) 853-5901

Email: ralvarado@cityofepa.org

JANNIE L. QUINN

Mountain View City Attorney

City of Mountain View

500 Castro Street

Mountain View, CA 94041

Ph. (650) 903-6496

Email: jannie.quinn@mountainview.gov

Attorney for City of East Palo Alto Attorney for City of Mountain View

BARBARA PARKER

City Attorney, City of Oakland

Office of the City Attorney

City Hall, 6th Floor

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza

Oakland, CA 94612

Ph. (510) 238-3815

Email: bjparker@oaklandcityattorney.org

RICHARD DOYLE

City Attorney, City of San Jose

Office of the City Attorney

200 E. Santa Clara St., 16th Flr.

San Jose, CA 95113

Ph. (408) 535-1900

Email: richard.doyle@sanjoseca.gov

Attorney for City of Oakland Attorney for City of San Jose

BRUCE GOODMILLER

City Attorney, City of Richmond

Office of the City Attorney

450 Civic Center Plaza, #303

Richmond, CA 94804

Ph. (510) 620-6509

Email: Bruce_Goodmiller@ci.richmond.ca.us

ANTHONY P. CONDOTTI

City Attorney, City of Santa Cruz

Office of the City Attorney

333 Church Street

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

Ph. (831) 423-8383

Email: TCondotti@abc-law.com

Attorney for City of Richmond Attorney for City of Santa Cruz

CHRISTOPHER A. CALLIHAN

City Attorney, City of Salinas

Office of the City Attorney

200 Lincoln Avenue

Salinas, CA 93901-2639

Ph. (831) 758-7256

Email: chrisc@ci.salinas.ca.us

SUE GALLAGHER

City Attorney, City of Santa Rosa

City Attorney’s Office

100 Santa Rosa Ave., Rm. 8

Santa Rosa, CA 95404

Ph. (510) 995-5800

Email: tstricker@srcity.org

Attorney for City of Salinas Attorney for City of Santa Rosa

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 126 Filed 06/28/17 Page 10 of 10