Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20170425_0003222.NCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-11-20 17:29:06
Document Index: 732884791

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§2', '§9', '§ 1101', '§3', '§9', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12']

ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA'S AND CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO'S MOTIONS TO ENJOIN SECTION 9(a) OF EXECUTIVE ORDER 13768
This case involves Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States, ” which, in addition to outlining a number of immigration enforcement policies, purports to “[e]nsure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law” and to establish a procedure whereby “sanctuary jurisdictions” shall be ineligible to receive federal grants. Executive Order 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (the “Executive Order”). In two related actions, the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco have challenged Section 9 of the Executive Order as facially unconstitutional and have brought motions for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin its enforcement. See County of Santa Clara v. Trump, No. 17-cv-0574-WHO; City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, 17-cv-0485-WHO.
The Counties challenge the enforcement provision of the Order, Section 9(a), on several grounds: first, it violates the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution because it improperly seeks to wield congressional spending powers; second, it is so overbroad and coercive that even if the President had spending powers, the Order would clearly exceed them and violate the Tenth Amendment's prohibition against commandeering local jurisdictions; third, it is so vague and standardless that it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and is void for vagueness; and, finally, because it seeks to deprive local jurisdictions of congressionally allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard, it violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment.[1]
The Government does not respond to the Counties' constitutional challenges but argues that the Counties lack standing because the Executive Order did not change existing law and because the Counties have not been named “sanctuary jurisdictions” pursuant to the Order. It explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President's “bully pulpit” to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement. Under this interpretation, Section 9(a) applies only to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. This interpretation renders the Order toothless; the Government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. 1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law. Counsel disavowed any right through the Order for the Government to affect any other part of the billions of dollars in federal funds the Counties receive every year.
It is heartening that the Government's lawyers recognize that the Order cannot do more constitutionally than enforce existing law. But Section 9(a), by its plain language, attempts to reach all federal grants, not merely the three mentioned at the hearing. The rest of the Order is broader still, addressing all federal funding. And if there was doubt about the scope of the Order, the President and Attorney General have erased it with their public comments. The President has called it “a weapon” to use against jurisdictions that disagree with his preferred policies of immigration enforcement, and his press secretary has reiterated that the President intends to ensure that “counties and other institutions that remain sanctuary cites don't get federal government funding in compliance with the executive order.” The Attorney General has warned that jurisdictions that do not comply with Section 1373 would suffer “withholding grants, termination of grants, and disbarment or ineligibility for future grants, ” and the “claw back” of any funds previously awarded. Section 9(a) is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing.
Although the Government's new interpretation of the Order is not legally plausible, in effect it appears to put the parties in general agreement regarding the Order's constitutional limitations. The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.
To succeed in their motions, the Counties must show that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor. The Counties have met this burden. They have demonstrated that they have standing to challenge the Order and are currently suffering irreparable harm, not only because the Order has caused and will cause them constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine and depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights, but also because the Order has caused budget uncertainty by threatening to deprive the Counties of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants that support core services in their jurisdictions. They have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims and that the balance of harms and public interest decisively weigh in favor of an injunction. The Counties' motions for preliminary injunction against Section 9(a) of the Executive Order are GRANTED as further described below.
On January 25, 2017, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” See Harris Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. A (“EO”) (SC Dkt. No. 36-1). In outlining the Executive Order's purpose, Section 1 reads, in part, “Sanctuary jurisdictions across the United States willfully violate Federal law in an attempt to shield aliens from removal from the United States.” EO §1. Section 2 states that the policy of the executive branch is to “[e]nsure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law.” EO §2(c).
Section 9, titled “Sanctuary Jurisdictions” lays out this policy in more detail. It reads:
EO §9.
Section 3 of the Order, titled “Definitions, ” incorporates the definitions listed in 8 U.S.C. § 1101. EO §3. Section 1101 does not define “sanctuary jurisdiction.” The term is not defined anywhere in the Executive Order. Similarly, neither section 1101 nor the Order defines what it means for a jurisdiction to “willfully refuse to comply” with Section 1373 or for a policy to “prevent[] or hinder[] the enforcement of Federal law.” EO §9(a).
II. SECTION 1373
In July, 2016, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance linking two federal grant programs, the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”) and Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) to compliance with Section 1373.[2] This guidance states that all applicants for these two grant programs are required to “assure and certify compliance with all applicable federal statutes, including Section 1373, as well as all applicable federal regulations, policies, guidelines, and requirements.” Id. The Department has indicated that the Community Oriented Policing Services Grant (COPS) is also conditioned on compliance with Section 1373.
IV. THE COUNTIES' POLICIES
Santa Clara asserts that its local policies and practices with regard to federal immigration enforcement are at odds with the Executive Order's provisions regarding Section 1373. S.C. Mot. at 5. (SC Dkt. No. 26). In 2010, the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors adopted a Resolution prohibiting Santa Clara employees from using County resources to transmit any information to ICE that was collected in the course of providing critical services or benefits. Marquez Decl. ¶27 (SC Dkt. No. 29) & Ex. G (SC Dkt. No. 29-7); Neusel Decl. ¶7 (SC Dkt. No. 31); L. Smith Decl. ¶6 (SC Dkt. No. 35). The Resolution also prohibits employees from initiating an inquiry or enforcement action based solely on the individual's actual or suspected immigration status, national origin, race or ethnicity, or English-speaking ability, or from using County resources to pursue an individual solely because of an actual or suspected violation of immigration law. Id. In October, 2016, after receiving DOJ guidance that JAG and SCAAP funds would be conditioned on compliance with Section 1373, Santa Clara decided not to participate in those programs. Marquez Decl. ¶ 29 & Ex. H (SC Dkt. No. 29-8).
Santa Clara also asserts that its policies with regard to ICE civil detainer requests are inconsistent with the Executive Order and the President's stated immigration enforcement agenda. Prior to late 2011, Santa Clara responded to and honored ICE civil detainer requests, housing an average of 135 additional inmates each day at a daily cost of approximately $159 per inmate. Neusel Decl. ¶4. When the County raised concerns about the costs associated with complying with detainer requests and potential civil liability, ICE confirmed that it would not reimburse the County or indemnify it for the associated costs and liabilities. Marquez Decl. ¶¶ 21-15 & Exs. B-D.
Santa Clara subsequently convened a task force and adopted a new policy where the County agreed to honor requests for individuals with serious or violent felony convictions, but only if ICE would reimburse the County for the cost of holding those individuals. Neusel Decl. ¶6; Marquez Decl. ¶26 & Ex. E. ICE has never agreed to reimburse the County for any costs, so since November 2011 the County has declined to honor all ICE detainer requests. Id.
B. San Francisco's Policies
San Francisco's sanctuary city policies are contained in Chapters 12H and 12I of its Administrative Code. Eisenberg Decl. Exs. A-B (SF Dkt. No. 28). The stated purpose of these laws is “to foster respect and trust between law enforcement and residents, to protect limited local resources, to encourage cooperation between residents and City officials, including especially law enforcement and public health officers and employees, and to ensure community security, and due process for all.” S.F. Admin Code § 12I.1.
As relevant to Section 1373, Chapter 12H prohibits San Francisco departments, agencies, commissions, officers, and employees from using San Francisco funds or resources to assist in enforcing federal immigration law or gathering or disseminating information regarding an individual's release status, or other confidential identifying information (which as defined does not include immigration status), unless such assistance is required by federal or state law. S.F. Admin Code § 12H.2. Although Chapter 12H previously prohibited city employees from sharing information regarding individuals' immigration status, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors removed this restriction in July, 2016, due to concerns that the provision violated Section 1373.
With regard to civil detainer requests, Chapter 12I prohibits San Francisco law enforcement from detaining an individual, otherwise eligible for release from custody, solely on the basis of a civil immigration detainer request. S.F. Admin Code § 12I.3. It also prohibits local law enforcement from providing ICE with advanced notice that an individual will be released from custody, unless the individual meets certain criteria. S.F. Admin Code § 12I.3. Chapter 12I.3. (e) provides that a “[l]aw enforcement official shall not arrest or detain an individual, or provide any individual's personal information to a federal immigration officer, on the basis of an administrative warrant, prior deportation order, or other civil immigration document based solely on alleged violations of the civil provisions of immigration laws.” S.F. Admin Code § 12I.3. (e). San Francisco explains that it adopted these policies due to concerns that holding people in response to civil detainers would violate the Fourth Amendment and require it to dedicate scarce law enforcement personnel and resources to holding these individuals. Hennessy Decl. ¶11 (SF Dkt. No. 24).
V. THE COUNTIES' FEDERAL FUNDING
A. Santa Clara's Federal Funding
In the 2015-2016 fiscal year, Santa Clara received approximately $1.7 billion in federal and federally dependent funds, making up roughly 35% of the County's total revenues. J. Smith Decl. ¶6; Marquez Decl. ¶8. This figure includes federal funds provided through entitlement programs.
Most of the County's federal funds are used to provide essential services to its residents. Marquez Decl. ¶¶ 5-8. In support of its motion, the County includes a number of declarations outlining how a loss of any substantial amount of federal funding would force it to make substantial cut backs to safety-net programs and essential services and would require it to lay off thousands of employees. It highlights that the County's Valley Medical Center, the only public safety-net healthcare provider in the County, relies on $1 billion in federal funds each year, which covers up to 70% of its total annual costs. Lorenz Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7 (SC Dkt. No. 28). A loss of all federal funds would shut down Valley Medical Center and cut off the only healthcare option for thousands of poor, elderly, and vulnerable people in the County. Id. ¶ 8. It further highlights that Santa Clara's Social Services Agency, which provides various services to vulnerable residents, including child welfare and protection, aid to needy families, and support for disabled children, adults and the elderly, receives roughly 40% of its budget, $300 million, from federal funds. Menicocci Decl. ¶5 (SC Dkt. No. 30). The County's Public Health Department receives 40% of its budget and $38 million in federal funds. And the County's Office of Emergency Services, whose job is to prepare for and respond to disasters such as earthquakes and terrorism, receives more than two-thirds of its budget from federal funds. Reed Decl. ¶¶ 3-20 (SC Dkt. No. 32).
In the 2014-2015 fiscal year, the County received over $565 million in non-entitlement federal grants. See Marquez Decl. Ex. A at 11-12 (SC Dkt. No. 29-1) (showing $338 million in federal grants subject to OMB auditing requirements and an additional $227 million in federal grants through the Department of Housing and Urban Development). This $565 million represents approximately 11% of the County's budget.
B. San Francisco's Federal Funding
San Francisco's yearly budget is approximately $9.6 billion; it receives approximately $1.2 billion of this from the federal government. Rosenfield Decl. ¶9 (SF Dkt. No. 22). San Francisco uses these federal funds to provide vital services such as medical care, social services, and meals to vulnerable residents, to maintain and upgrade roads and public transportation, and to make needed seismic upgrades. Whitehouse Decl. ¶16 (SF Dkt. No. 23). Losing all, or a substantial amount, of federal funds would have significant effects on core San Francisco programs: federal funds make up 100% of Medicare for San Francisco residents, Rosenfield Decl. ¶ 29; 30% of the budget for San Francisco's Department of Emergency Management, id. ¶¶25-27; 33% of the budget for San Francisco's Human Services Agency, id. ¶¶13-18; and 40% of the budget for San Francisco's Department of Public Health, id. ¶¶19-24.
Approximately 20% of these federal funds, or $240 million, are from federal grants. Id. ¶29. San Francisco also receives $800 million each year in federal multi-year grants, primarily for public infrastructure projects. Id. ¶11.
San Francisco must adopt a balanced budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2017. Whitehouse Decl. ¶16. Under local law, the Mayor must submit a balanced budget to the Board of Supervisors by June 1 and make fundamental budget decisions by May 15, including whether to create a budget reserve to account for the potential loss of significant funds. Id. ¶5-6, 8. Any money placed in the budget reserve would not be available to be used for other programs or services in the coming fiscal year. Id. ¶9.
The Government argues that the Counties' claims against the Executive Order are not justiciable because the Counties cannot establish an injury-in-fact, which is necessary to establish standing, and because their claims are not ripe for review. These principles of standing and ripeness go to whether this court has jurisdiction to hear the Counties' claims. I conclude that the Counties have demonstrated Article III standing to challenge the Executive Order and that their claims are ripe for review.
Article III, section 2 of the Constitution limits the jurisdiction of the federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497, 516 (2007); see U.S. Const. art. III, §, cl. 1. “Standing is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). To establish standing a plaintiff must demonstrate “that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury.” Massachusetts, 549 U.S. at 517 (citing Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560-61).
The Counties contend that they have standing to challenge the Executive Order because the Order threatens to defund, or otherwise bring enforcement action against, states and local jurisdictions that are “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Although the Order does not clearly define “sanctuary jurisdictions, ” it directs the Attorney General and Secretary to ensure that jurisdictions that “willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 (sanctuary jurisdictions) are not eligible to receive Federal grants” and elsewhere equates jurisdictions that refuse to honor detainer requests with the term “sanctuary jurisdictions.” It further directs the Attorney General to bring “enforcement action” against jurisdictions with policies that “hinder[] the enforcement of Federal law.” The Counties represent that they have “sanctuary policies” that are likely to subject them to enforcement or defunding under the Order. They assert that enforcement under the Order would result in injury-in-fact in the form of cuts to federal funds and whatever other penalty the Government seeks to impose through its “enforcement action.” As a result of this threat of major cuts to federal funding, the Order is also causing present injury-in-fact in the form of budget uncertainty. Alternatively, attempting to comply with the Order would also cause injury, as it would require them to change their local policies in ways that conflict with their local judgment on how best to ensure public safety and require them to commit substantial resources to assist in enforcing federal immigration laws.
The Government raises two primary arguments against the Counties' claims of standing. First, it asserts that the Counties cannot demonstrate injury-in-fact traceable to the Executive Order because the Order does not change the law in any way, but merely directs the Attorney General and Secretary to enforce existing law. Second, it argues that the Counties' claims of injury are not sufficiently “concrete” or “imminent” because the Government has not designated either County as a “sanctuary jurisdiction” and has not withheld any federal funds. I will address these arguments in turn.
1. Whether the Executive Order Changes the Law
The Government's primary defense is that the Order does not change the law, but merely directs the Attorney General and Secretary to enforce existing law. In its briefing, the Government emphasized Section 9(a)'s provision that it will be implemented “to the extent consistent with law.” It argued that to the extent the Order directs the Attorney General and Secretary to newly condition federal funds on compliance with Section 1373, it could not lawfully do so and so it does not. It asserted, “If the grant language does not require compliance with Section 1373, the Executive Order does not purport to give the Secretary or Attorney General the unilateral authority to alter those terms.” S.C. Oppo. at 13. By this interpretation, Section 9 simply directs the Attorney General and Secretary to ensure that grants that are already conditioned on compliance with Section 1373 are not remitted to jurisdictions that fail to meet that requirement. At the hearing, the Government went further and explicitly disclaimed the ability under the Executive Order to add conditions to grants authorized by Congress or to enforce the Order against any but three grant programs, SCAAP, JAG and COPS. Government counsel urged me to adopt this narrow reading of the Order, arguing that well-established rules of construction require courts to adopt narrow readings when broader ones would read in constitutional problems.
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;Where a construction of a statute &ldquo;would raise serious constitutional problems, the Court will construe the statute to avoid such problems unless such construction is plainly contrary to the intent of Congress.&rdquo; Edward J. DeBartolo Corp. v. Florida Gulf Coast Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 485 U.S. 568, 575 (1988).[3] &ldquo;[A]s between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act.&rdquo; Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U.S. 142, 148 (1927). The primary purpose of the doctrine is to “minimize disagreement ...