Admin. Motion Re: Cases Related; 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO

1 n:\cxlit\li2018\171027\01301045.docx

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 

DENNIS J. HERRERA, State Bar #139669

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH, State Bar #122517 Chief Assistant City Attorney 

RONALD P. FLYNN, State Bar #184186 Chief Deputy City Attorney 

YVONNE R. MERÉ, State Bar #173594

Chief of Complex and Affirmative Litigation 

TARA M. STEELEY, State Bar #231775

SARA J. EISENBERG, State Bar #269303 

AILEEN M. McGRATH, State Bar #280846

MATTHEW S. LEE, State Bar #295247

NEHA GUPTA, State Bar #308864 

Deputy City Attorneys 

City Hall, Room 234 

1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place 

San Francisco, California 94102-4602 

Telephone: (415) 554-4748 

Facsimile: (415) 554-4715 

E-Mail: brittany.feitelberg@sfcityatty.org 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN 

FRANCISCO, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United 

States, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

ELAINE DUKE, Acting Secretary of United 

States Department of Homeland Security, 

JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, Attorney 

General of the United States, DOES 1-100, 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO 

UNOPPOSED ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION 

TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD 

BE RELATED PURSUANT TO N.D. CAL. 

CIVIL L.R. 3-12(B) 

Date Filed: January 31, 2017 

INTRODUCTION 

Plaintiff City and County of San Francisco (“San Francisco”), a party in this action, has filed a 

separate action challenging several new grant conditions imposed by the United States Department of 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 212 Filed 08/29/18 Page 1 of 5
 

Admin. Motion Re: Cases Related; 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO

2 n:\cxlit\li2018\171027\01301045.docx

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 

Justice. City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions, et. al., Case No. 3:18-cv-05146-JCS 

(“San Francisco v. Sessions II”), involves the same parties and very similar issues to those presently 

before this Court in City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions, Case No. 3:17-cv-04642-WHO 

(“San Francisco v. Sessions I”) and Becerra v. Sessions, Case No. 3:17-cv-04701-WHO. The case 

also involves the same Plaintiff, one of the same Defendants, and similar issues to those this Court has 

considered in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-00485-WHO (“San 

Francisco v. Trump”). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-12(b), San Francisco respectfully requests that 

the Court consider whether these matters may be related, and conclude that they are. Defendants do 

not object to this request. See Declaration of Sara J. Eisenberg in Support of Administrative Motion to 

Consider Whether Cases Should Be Related (“Eisenberg Decl.”) ¶ 6. 

DISCUSSION 

“An action is related to another when: (1) The actions concern substantially the same parties, 

property, transaction or event; and (2) it appears likely that there will be an unduly burdensome 

duplication of labor and expense or conflicting results if the cases are conducted before different 

Judges.” N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 3-12(a). San Francisco v. Sessions II, San Francisco v. Sessions I, 

Becerra v. Sessions, and San Francisco v. Trump concern substantially the same parties, and they all 

challenge actions by President Trump’s Administration to attempt to withhold federal funds from 

sanctuary cities.1

 This Court has already found San Francisco v. Sessions I and San Francisco v. 

Trump to be related to one another (Related Case Order, San Francisco v. Trump, Dkt. No. 157),2 and 

it should likewise find San Francisco v. Sessions II to be related to these cases. 

San Francisco v. Trump challenges provisions of President Trump’s January 25, 2017 

executive order directing specified actions against state, local, and municipal governments deemed to 

be so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Exec. Order 13,768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (the 

 1

 The complaints in San Francisco v. Sessions I, San Francisco v. Sessions II, and San 

Francisco v. Trump are attached as Exhibits 1, 2, and 3, respectively, to the Declaration of Sara J. 

Eisenberg filed with this Motion. 

2

 The Court has also related San Francisco v. Trump to two other cases challenging Executive 

Order No. 13,768. See Related Case Ord., San Francisco v. Trump, Dkt. Nos. 19 (relating County of 

Santa Clara v. Trump et al., Case No. 5:17-cv-00574-WHO) and 53 (relating City of Richmond v. 

Trump, et al., Case No. 3:17-cv-01535-WHO). The Court has also related San Francisco v. Sessions I

to Becerra v. Sessions. See Related Case Ord., San Francisco v. Sessions I, Dkt. No. 34. 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 212 Filed 08/29/18 Page 2 of 5
 

Admin. Motion Re: Cases Related; 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO

3 n:\cxlit\li2018\171027\01301045.docx

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 

“Executive Order”). Among other things, the Executive Order directs the Attorney General and the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to ensure that sanctuary jurisdictions “are not eligible to receive 

Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or 

the Secretary.” Id. § 9(a). San Francisco contends that this violates constitutional separation of 

powers, the Spending Clause, and the Tenth Amendment. Second Am. Compl. for Declaratory and 

Inj. Relief ¶¶ 144-157, San Francisco v. Trump, Dkt. No. 105. On November 20, 2017, the Court 

entered summary judgment in San Francisco’s favor, finding the Executive Order unconstitutional for 

these reasons. Order Granting Mot. for Summ. J. at 4, San Francisco v. Trump, Dkt. No. 200. The 

Ninth Circuit affirmed the Court’s judgment in substantial part, but remanded the case for further 

factual development concerning the proper scope of injunctive relief. City and County of San 

Francisco v. Trump, No. 17-17478, 2018 WL 3637911 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018). 

San Francisco v. Sessions I challenges grant requirements that the United States Department of 

Justice imposed on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) Program for 

the FY 2017 grant cycle. These requirements require grant recipients to (1) execute a certification of 

compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (“Section 1373”), (2) provide federal immigration officials access to 

local detention facilities to interrogate any suspected aliens held there, and (3) provide the Department 

of Homeland Security with 48 hours’ notice before releasing an individual, where the federal 

government has requested notice in order to take that individual into custody for immigration reasons. 

First Am. Compl., ¶¶ 71-116, San Francisco v. Sessions I, Dkt. No. 61. San Francisco contends that 

these requirements violate the Constitution’s separation of powers and Spending Clause. Id. ¶¶ 177-

192. These provisions seek to usurp Congress’ power to attach conditions on federal grant funding, 

because Congress has neither included these conditions in any federal statute nor authorized the 

Attorney General to impose them. In addition, the requirements are ambiguous and are not germane to 

the stated purposes of the statutory program. Further, San Francisco v. Sessions I seeks declaratory 

relief that the Department of Justice may not withhold Byrne JAG funding from San Francisco on the 

basis of Section 1373, because San Francisco’s laws—as well as the policies of the San Francisco 

departments administering Byrne JAG-funded programs—comply with Section 1373. Id. ¶¶ 166-176. 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 212 Filed 08/29/18 Page 3 of 5
 

Admin. Motion Re: Cases Related; 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO

4 n:\cxlit\li2018\171027\01301045.docx

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 

San Francisco v. Sessions II also concerns the Department of Justice’s authority to impose 

immigration-related conditions on federal grant funding. San Francisco v. Sessions II, like San 

Francisco v. Sessions I, concerns requirements the Department of Justice has imposed on the Byrne 

JAG program—this time, on the FY 2018 grant program. As in Sessions I, the FY 2018 requirements 

all constitute efforts by the Department of Justice to coerce state and local jurisdictions to participate 

in federal immigration enforcement. Several of the challenged conditions are little more than 

repackaged versions of the FY 2017 requirements that are the subject of litigation in Sessions I. 

Others, however, go much further, implying that sanctuary jurisdictions violate federal criminal laws 

simply by having sanctuary city policies. 

Specifically, the new FY 2018 requirements require grant recipients to (1) certify that they will 

not “impede” the federal government’s authority under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1231, including by 

agreeing to provide at least 48 hours’ advance notice to federal immigration authorities regarding the 

scheduled release date and time of an alien in the recipient’s custody when the Department of 

Homeland Security requests such notice in order to take custody of the alien pursuant to the 

Immigration and Nationality Act; (2) certify that they will not “impede” the federal government’s 

authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1357, including by agreeing to provide Department of Homeland Security 

personnel with access to any correctional or detention facility to meet with an alien (or an individual 

believed to be an alien) and inquire as to his or her right to be or remain in the United States; (3) 

certify that they have no laws, policies, or practices that would violate, or aid or abet any violation of, 

8 U.S.C. § 1324, which, inter alia, makes it a criminal offense to conceal or harbor an individual who 

is unlawfully present in the United States; and (4) certify that they will not “impede” the federal 

government’s authority under 8 U.S.C. § 1366 in some unspecified fashion. See Complaint, San 

Francisco v. Sessions II, Dkt. No. 1; see also U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Edward Byrne Memorial Justice 

Assistance Grant (JAG) Program – Local Solicitation, https://www.bja.gov/Funding/JAGLocal18.pdf. 

As in Sessions I, San Francisco contends that each of these requirements violates the Constitution’s 

separation of powers and Spending Clause. These provisions likewise seek to usurp Congress’ power 

to attach conditions on federal grant funding, because Congress has not authorized the Attorney 

General to impose them. In additions, the requirements are ambiguous and not germane to the stated 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 212 Filed 08/29/18 Page 4 of 5
 

Admin. Motion Re: Cases Related; 

Case No. 3:17-CV-00485-WHO

5 n:\cxlit\li2018\171027\01301045.docx

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 

purposes of the Byrne JAG program. 

The three cases also concern substantially the same parties. The parties in San Francisco v. 

Sessions I and San Francisco v. Sessions II are identical. San Francisco v. Trump and San Francisco 

v. Sessions II also have significant overlap between the parties: San Francisco is the plaintiff in both 

suits, and Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions is a defendant in both suits. San Francisco v. Trump

also names as defendants President Trump, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Secretary John F. 

Kelly, and the United States. San Francisco v. Sessions II also names as defendants Laura L. Rogers, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States, and the United States Department of Justice. 

Given the overlap in parties and the similar factual and legal issues involved, conducting these 

actions in two courts simultaneously may lead to unnecessary duplication of effort and the potential 

for conflicting results. 

Defendants do not object to the request that these cases be related. See Eisenberg Decl. ¶ 6. 

CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, San Francisco respectfully requests that the Court find that San 

Francisco v. Sessions II is related to San Francisco v. Trump—and the other cases that have been 

related thereto—under Local Rule 3-12. 

Dated: August 29, 2018 

 DENNIS J. HERRERA 

City Attorney 

JESSE C. SMITH 

RONALD P. FLYNN 

YVONNE R. MERÉ 

TARA STEELEY 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

AILEEN M. McGRATH 

MATTHEW S. LEE 

NEHA GUPTA

Deputy City Attorneys 

By: /s/ Sara J. Eisenberg 

SARA J. EISENBERG 

 Deputy City Attorney 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 

Case 3:17-cv-00485-WHO Document 212 Filed 08/29/18 Page 5 of 5