Case Name: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William P. BARR, Attorney General; Alan R. Hanson, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs; Russell Washington, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; United States Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellants.
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2019-07-12
Citations: 929 F.3d 1163
Docket Number: No. 18-55599
Parties: CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William P. BARR, Attorney General; Alan R. Hanson, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs; Russell Washington, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; United States Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 3d Series
Volume: 929
Pages: 1163–1196

Head Matter:
CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
William P. BARR, Attorney General; Alan R. Hanson, in his official capacity as Acting Assistant Attorney General of the Office of Justice Programs; Russell Washington, in his official capacity as Acting Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services; United States Department of Justice, Defendants-Appellants.
No. 18-55599
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Argued and Submitted August 30, 2018 Pasadena, California
Filed July 12, 2019

Opinion:
IKUTA, Circuit Judge:
In 1994, Congress enacted the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (VCCLEA), Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1796, to provide a range of federal assistance to state and local law enforcement. The Public Safety Partnership and Community Policing Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-322, 108 Stat. 1807 (the Act), which was enacted as part of the VCCLEA, authorizes the Department of Justice (DOJ) to administer a competitive grant program that allocates a limited pool of funds to state and local applicants whose applications are approved by the Attorney General.
In 2017, Los Angeles applied for a grant, but failed to score highly enough to earn one. It challenges the use of two of the many factors DOJ uses in determining the scores for each applicant. Because DOJ's use of these two factors in evaluating applicants for a competitive grant program did not violate the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, art. I, § 8, cl. 1, did not exceed DOJ's statutory authority, and did not violate the Administrative Procedure Act, we reverse the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Los Angeles.
I
The Act's grant program, codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10381 to 10389, gives broad discretion to DOJ to allocate grants and administer the grant program for the purposes set forth in § 10381(b). Section 10381(b) authorizes twenty-three different purposes, each generally linked to the goal of enhancing the crime prevention function of state and local law enforcement through working with the community. DOJ is authorized to "promulgate regulations and guidelines to carry out" the grant program, 34 U.S.C. § 10388, and may prescribe the required form and content of grant applications through regulations or guidelines, id. § 10382(b). By statute, the application must contain eleven broad categories of information, including an assessment of the impact of the proposed initiative on other aspects of the criminal justice system. See id. § 10382(c). Each application must also "identify related governmental and community initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the proposal" and "explain how the grant will be utilized to reorient the affected law enforcement agency's mission toward community-oriented policing or enhance its involvement in or commitment to community-oriented policing." Id. § 10382(c)(4), (10).
The statute permits DOJ to give "preferential consideration, where feasible," on specified grounds, including whether the application proposes hiring and rehiring additional career law enforcement officers, where a non-Federal contribution will cover more than the required 25 percent of the program cost. Id. § 10381(c)(1). The statute was amended in 2015 to allow DOJ to give preferential treatment to a state that has enacted certain laws designed to combat human trafficking. See id. § 10381(c)(2), (3) ; Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22, § 601, 1002, 129 Stat. 227, 259-60, 266-67.
Congress has regularly made appropriations for grants administered under this statute. DOJ has determined that Congress intended these appropriations to be used for two of the twenty-three purposes set forth in § 10381, namely "to rehire law enforcement officers who have been laid off as a result of State, tribal, or local budget reductions for deployment in community-oriented policing," 34 U.S.C. § 10381(b)(1), and "to hire and train new, additional career law enforcement officers for deployment in community-oriented policing across the Nation," id. § 10381(b)(2).
DOJ has exercised its broad discretion under the Act by developing a combined guidelines and application form for parties that wish to apply for a grant to hire or rehire officers for community-oriented policing. See COPS Office Application Attachment to SF-424 (referred to hereafter as "Application Guidelines"). The Application Guidelines define "community policing" as "a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime." Community policing strategies may include "ongoing collaborative relationships" with local and federal agencies, as well as "systematically tailor[ing] responses to crime and disorder problems to address their underlying conditions."
The Application Guidelines set out a series of questions and instructions that allow an applicant to explain why it is seeking a grant and why it is best qualified to receive one. Among other things, an applicant must explain its need for federal assistance, provide information about its fiscal health, agree to comply with various provisions of federal law, and provide additional information and assurances of various kinds. An applicant must also specify its law enforcement and community policing strategy, including a "crime and disorder problem/focus area." The Application Guidelines direct the applicant to choose one of eight focus areas: "illegal immigrations," "child and youth safety focus, " "drug abuse education, prevention and intervention," "homeland security problems," "nonviolent crime problems and quality of life policing," "building trust and respect," "traffic/pedestrian safety problems," and "violent crimes problems." The Application Guidelines provide examples of the type of problems included in each focus area. For the homeland security focus area, for instance, the Application Guidelines state, "Please specify your critical infrastructure problem; for example, addressing threats against facilities, developing and testing incident response plans, etc." For the illegal immigration focus area, the Application Guidelines state, "Please specify your focus on partnering with the federal law enforcement to address illegal immigration for information sharing, [§] 287(g) partnerships, task forces and honoring detainers."
DOJ evaluates, scores, and ranks the submitted applications, then awards grant funds to the highest scoring applicants. The scoring process is designed to allocate federal assistance to programs, focuses, or conduct that DOJ deems to best further statutory purposes and federal goals. Consistent with the statutory criteria, DOJ gives points to applicants that best demonstrate "a specific public safety need" and show an "inability to address the need without Federal assistance," 34 U.S.C. § 10382(c)(2), (c)(3), and to applicants that best "explain how the grant will be utilized to reorient the affected law enforcement agency's mission toward community-oriented policing or enhance its involvement in or commitment to community-oriented policing," id. § 10382(c)(10). DOJ also gives points to applicants in jurisdictions with higher crime rates and comparatively lower fiscal health. Additionally, DOJ scores applicants on how their proposals relate to that year's federal goals. In various years, DOJ has awarded points for applicants that gave work to military veterans, that adopted specified management practices (such as making regular assessments of employee satisfaction, exercising flexibility in officer shift assignments, and operating an early intervention system to identify officers with specified personal risks), or that experienced certain catastrophic events, such as a terror attack or school shooting. In 2017, DOJ gave additional points to applicants that focused on the federal priority areas of violent crime, homeland security, and control of illegal immigration. Also in 2017, an applicant could elect to receive additional points by submitting a "Certification of Illegal Immigration Cooperation" (the "Certification") in which the applicant agrees that (1) the applicant will implement rules, regulations, or practices that ensure DHS personnel have access to the entity's correctional or detention facilities in order to meet with an alien, and (2) the applicant will implement rules, regulations, policies, or practices to ensure that the entity's correctional or detention facilities provide notice "as early as practicable (at least 48 hours, where possible) to DHS regarding the scheduled release" of an alien in custody.
As usual, in the 2017 grant cycle, DOJ received more requests for funding than it was able to grant. Congress allocated roughly $98.5 million for grants, but applicants requested almost $410 million. From a total applicant pool of 90 large jurisdictions and 1,029 small jurisdictions, DOJ awarded grant funds to 30 of the large jurisdictions and 149 of the small jurisdictions. An applicant did not need to select the illegal immigration focus or submit the Certification to receive funds. Of the seven applicants that chose illegal immigration as a focus area, only one large jurisdiction and one small jurisdiction received an award. Of the successful applicants, only 19 of the 30 large jurisdictions and 124 of the 149 small jurisdictions received bonus points for submitting the Certification. Los Angeles submitted an application but was not awarded any funding. It chose "building trust and respect" as its focus area and declined to submit the Certification.
In September 2017, Los Angeles filed a complaint seeking to enjoin DOJ's practice of awarding points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area and to applicants that completed a Certification related to illegal immigration. Los Angeles argues that these two elements of DOJ's scoring system are unlawful because they (1) violate constitutional principles of separation of powers and exceed DOJ's lawful authority, (2) violate the Spending Clause, and (3) are arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court agreed with Los Angeles on each of these claims. The court entered a permanent injunction against the challenged practices, and DOJ appealed.
II
Although Los Angeles claims it was injured by DOJ's use of two scoring elements in its 2017 grant cycle, that cycle has long since been completed. Therefore, we must determine whether this appeal is moot, and if not, whether Los Angeles has standing to bring its claims.
We first conclude that the appeal is not moot. Article III limits the jurisdiction of federal courts to actual cases and controversies. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Because there is no longer a live controversy regarding the 2017 grant program, the appeal would ordinarily be moot. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that an appeal is not moot in "exceptional situations" when it is "capable of repetition, yet evading review." Kingdomware Techs., Inc. v. United States , - U.S. -, 136 S. Ct. 1969, 1976, 195 L.Ed.2d 334 (2016) (quoting Spencer v. Kemna , 523 U.S. 1, 17, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998) ). Here, the case meets the requirements to avoid mootness. First, "the challenged action [is] in its duration too short to be fully litigated prior to cessation or expiration," id. (alteration in original) (quoting Spencer , 523 U.S. at 17, 118 S.Ct. 978 ), because any one grant cycle is too short to provide for meaningful review. In 2017, for instance, fewer than three months passed between DOJ's announcement of the scoring factors and the grant awards. Second, "there [is] a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party [will] be subject to the same action again." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Spencer , 523 U.S. at 17, 118 S.Ct. 978 ). Los Angeles is reasonably likely to apply for a DOJ grant in the future, and has done so in the previous two consecutive years. Los Angeles also submitted a declaration of its intent to apply for a grant in the 2018 cycle. Although DOJ states it has not yet determined "how immigration-related factors will be handled in the FY 2018 application," it has not agreed to stop giving bonus points for such factors in the future. Even if it had, voluntary cessation of the practice does not deprive us of power to hear the case "unless it can be said with assurance that there is no reasonable expectation . that the alleged violation will recur." Fikre v. FBI , 904 F.3d 1033, 1037 (9th Cir. 2018) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). No such assurances are present here.
We also conclude that Los Angeles has standing to bring this appeal. Los Angeles states it "has made a longstanding decision that it can best protect public safety by not participating in federal civil immigration enforcement." It also states that its police department has a longstanding policy that "restricts an officer from initiating a police action with the objective of discovering a person's immigration status, and also prohibits arrests based solely on civil immigration status." As a result of these policies, Los Angeles declined to select the illegal immigration focus and declined to submit the Certification. Accordingly, Los Angeles claims that when it applied for a grant, it was disadvantaged relative to other applicants that were able to choose the illegal immigration focus area or complete the Certification, and this inability to compete on an even playing field constitutes a concrete and particularized injury. See Bullfrog Films, Inc. v. Wick , 847 F.2d 502, 506 (9th Cir. 1988) ; Preston v. Heckler , 734 F.2d 1359, 1365 (9th Cir. 1984) ("[W]hen challenged agency conduct allegedly renders a person unable to fairly compete for some benefit, that person has suffered a sufficient 'injury in fact.' " (quoting Glacier Park Found. v. Watt , 663 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir. 1981) ); cf. Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke , 438 U.S. 265, 280 n.14, 98 S.Ct. 2733, 57 L.Ed.2d 750 (1978) (holding that plaintiff suffered an injury when he could not compete for all places in his entering medical school class). While DOJ states that Los Angeles would not have received funding regardless of whether DOJ awarded bonus points for the illegal immigration focus area or the Certification, Los Angeles need not prove that it would have received funding absent the challenged considerations. See Ne. Fla. Chapter of Associated Gen. Contractors of Am. v. City of Jacksonville , 508 U.S. 656, 666, 113 S.Ct. 2297, 124 L.Ed.2d 586 (1993). Further, Los Angeles argues that such injury is directly traceable to DOJ's use of the challenged scoring elements. Should a court bar DOJ from using these scoring factors, Los Angeles contends, applicants that are willing to choose the illegal immigration focus area or to sign the Certification would no longer have that advantage over Los Angeles. See Bullfrog Films , 847 F.2d at 507-08.
Los Angeles's claim of injury is thin. Los Angeles does not argue it was prevented by law from selecting an illegal immigration focus or from agreeing to the Certification; it merely chose not to do so. Moreover, Los Angeles's decision not to select the illegal immigration focus did not itself put it at a competitive disadvantage. An applicant can choose only one focus area, and Los Angeles could have equalized the focus area bonus points by choosing the homeland security or violent crime focus area, both of which also received additional points, rather than choosing the "building trust and respect" focus area. (DOJ did not offer applicants equal points for conduct comparable to agreeing to the Certification, however.)
Despite the weakness of Los Angeles's argument, a plaintiff need show only a slight injury for standing. See United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedures (SCRAP) , 412 U.S. 669, 689 n.14, 93 S.Ct. 2405, 37 L.Ed.2d 254 (1973). We conclude that Los Angeles's slight competitive disadvantage due to its policy of not assisting the federal government on immigration-related issues is sufficient to give Los Angeles standing in this action.
III
Before turning to the merits of Los Angeles's claims, we first note the limited nature of the dispute. As noted above, in administering a federal grant program and scoring the applications it receives, DOJ gives additional points to an applicant that chooses to focus on the illegal immigration area (instead of other focus areas) and gives additional points to an applicant who agrees to the Certification. Choosing the illegal immigration area and submitting the Certification are not conditions of receiving a grant, and numerous applicants received grants without doing so. Likewise, numerous applicants who chose the illegal immigration focus area or submitted the Certification did not receive a grant. The question before us, therefore, is whether DOJ's scoring practice of giving these additional points is unconstitutional or exceeds DOJ's authority in administering the grant program.
A
We begin with Los Angeles's argument that DOJ's practice of giving additional consideration to applicants that choose to further the two specified federal goals violates the Spending Clause. The Spending Clause provides that Congress has the power "to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States." U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1. This power gives Congress the ability "to grant federal funds to the States, and [Congress] may condition such a grant upon the States' 'taking certain actions that Congress could not require them to take.' " Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius , 567 U.S. 519, 576, 132 S.Ct. 2566, 183 L.Ed.2d 450 (2012) (" NFIB ") (quoting Coll. Sav. Bank v. Fla. Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd. , 527 U.S. 666, 686, 119 S.Ct. 2219, 144 L.Ed.2d 605 (1999) ).
Although Congress has broad power to attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds, the power is not unlimited. South Dakota v. Dole , 483 U.S. 203, 207, 107 S.Ct. 2793, 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987). First, "the exercise of the spending power must be in pursuit of the general welfare." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). "In considering whether a particular expenditure is intended to serve general public purposes, courts should defer substantially to the judgment of Congress." Id.
Moreover, if Congress decides to impose conditions on the allocation of funds to the states, it "must do so unambiguously ., enabl[ing] the States to exercise their choice knowingly, cognizant of the consequences of their participation." Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman , 451 U.S. 1, 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531, 67 L.Ed.2d 694 (1981) ). In Pennhurst , the plaintiffs argued that a federal-state grant program should be reinterpreted as retroactively imposing significant costs on states that received those funds. 451 U.S. at 20, 101 S.Ct. 1531. In rejecting that reinterpretation, the Court held that legislation allocating funds to states in return for states accepting specified conditions is analogous to a contract between Congress and the states. Id. at 17, 101 S.Ct. 1531. "The legitimacy of Congress'[s] power to legislate under the spending power thus rests on whether the State voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the 'contract.' " Id. Congress goes too far when it surprises states with "post acceptance or 'retroactive' conditions." Id. at 25, 101 S.Ct. 1531. Therefore, the Court declined to reinterpret the "contract" between Congress and the states as retroactively imposing such unexpected and burdensome conditions. Id.
Nor can the federal government attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds if "the financial inducement offered by Congress might be so coercive as to pass the point at which pressure turns into compulsion," Dole, 483 U.S. at 211, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (internal quotation marks omitted). In South Dakota v. Dole , Congress attempted to induce states to adopt a minimum drinking age of twenty-one years by threatening to cut five percent of federal highway funding to those states that failed to do so. Id. at 211, 107 S.Ct. 2793. The Court held this was only "relatively mild encouragement to the States," and therefore "a valid use of the spending power." Id. at 211-12, 107 S.Ct. 2793. By contrast, the threat to eliminate all of a state's existing Medicaid funding if the state opted out of the Affordable Care Act's expansion in health care coverage was "much more than 'relatively mild encouragement'-it [was] a gun to the head," and therefore was an impermissible use of Congress's spending power. NFIB , 567 U.S. at 581, 132 S.Ct. 2566. Accordingly, Congress may offer conditional funding only if the "State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds." Id. at 578, 132 S.Ct. 2566.
Further, Congress may not impose conditions on federal grants that "are unrelated 'to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs.' " Dole , 483 U.S. at 207-08, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (quoting Massachusetts v. United States , 435 U.S. 444, 461, 98 S.Ct. 1153, 55 L.Ed.2d 403 (1978) (plurality opinion)). This standard is not demanding-the conditions need only "bear some relationship to the purpose of the federal spending." Mayweathers v. Newland , 314 F.3d 1062, 1067 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting New York v. United States , 505 U.S. 144, 167, 112 S.Ct. 2408, 120 L.Ed.2d 120 (1992) ). In Dole , for instance, the requirement that states adopt a minimum drinking age was sufficiently related to the payment of federal highway funds. Rejecting the dissent's argument that the restriction had too "attenuated or tangential [a] relationship to highway use or safety," Dole , 483 U.S. at 215, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (O'Connor, J., dissenting), the Court held that the age restriction was "directly related to one of the main purposes for which highway funds are expended-safe interstate travel," id. at 208, 107 S.Ct. 2793 (majority opinion). Indeed, the Court has never struck down a condition on federal grants based on this relatedness prong.
Finally, Congress may not require states to engage in actions that are themselves unconstitutional. Id. at 210-11, 107 S.Ct. 2793.
As even this brief description of the limitations on Congress's spending power makes clear, the applicable Spending Clause principles do not readily apply to an allocation of grant funds through a competitive grant process, such as the program in this case. As a threshold matter, DOJ does not propose to withdraw significant federal funds from a state or local jurisdiction unless they comply with specified federal requirements. Cf. NFIB , 567 U.S. at 579-80, 132 S.Ct. 2566 ; Dole , 483 U.S. at 205, 107 S.Ct. 2793. Nor does DOJ propose to reinterpret the terms of a grant retroactively to impose costly new responsibilities on a recipient. Cf. Pennhurst , 451 U.S. at 25, 101 S.Ct. 1531. Nor does DOJ offer a financial inducement for an applicant to cooperate on illegal immigration issues that is so coercive that it is tantamount to compulsion. Cf. NFIB , 567 U.S. at 579-80, 132 S.Ct. 2566. Rather, an applicant is free to choose one of many focus areas, and numerous applicants obtained funding without selecting illegal immigration or signing the Certification. Nor did DOJ impose surprise or ambiguous conditions on recipients of the funds, cf. Pennhurst , 451 U.S. at 25, 101 S.Ct. 1531 ; the immigration-related conditions were clearly presented in the Application Guidelines and Certification.
At most, DOJ's decision to give additional points to applicants that select an illegal immigration focus or that agree to the Certification encourages applicants to focus on these federal priorities. Because an applicant is free to select other prioritized focus areas or not to apply for a grant at all, such a subtle incentive offered by DOJ's scoring method is far less than the coercion in Dole , which directly reduced the amount of funds allocated to a state, and which the Court held was consistent with Spending Clause principles.
Finally, cooperation relating to enforcement of federal immigration law is in pursuit of the general welfare, and meets the low bar of being germane to the federal interest in providing the funding to "address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise . enhance public safety," VCCLEA § 1701(a), "one of the main purposes for which" the grant is intended, Dole , 483 U.S. at 208, 107 S.Ct. 2793. As explained in more detail below, DOJ has reasonably determined that cooperation on illegal immigration matters furthers the purposes of the Act. See infra at 1177-80. Accordingly, we reject Los Angeles's Spending Clause argument.
B
Because DOJ's scoring factors encourage, but do not coerce, an applicant to cooperate on immigration matters, we also reject Los Angeles's claims that DOJ's use of the factors infringes on state autonomy in a manner that raises Tenth Amendment concerns. Los Angeles's reliance on Gregory v. Ashcroft , 501 U.S. 452, 111 S.Ct. 2395, 115 L.Ed.2d 410 (1991), and Virginia Department of Education v. Riley , 106 F.3d 559 (4th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (per curiam), is meritless. Gregory held that the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act did not prohibit Missouri from enforcing its law requiring state judges to retire at age 70. 501 U.S. at 473, 111 S.Ct. 2395. According to the Court, while Congress has the power to override a state age requirement, it would have to use unmistakably clear statutory language to do so, because such a question "is a decision of the most fundamental sort for a sovereign entity." Id. at 460, 111 S.Ct. 2395. The Fourth Circuit applied a similar presumption in Riley , holding that the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act did not clearly establish that Congress intended to condition Virginia's receipt of federal funds on the state's provision of "private educational services to each of the State's 126 disabled students who had been expelled for reasons wholly unrelated to their disabilities." 106 F.3d at 560. Here, contrary to Los Angeles's argument, DOJ's decision to give points to applicants that submit the Certification and agree to give DHS personnel access to the applicant's correctional or detention facilities to meet with alien detainees, or to give DHS notice before an alien detainee is released, does not override state laws and therefore does not give rise to any Tenth Amendment concern.
IV
We now turn to Los Angeles's argument that DOJ exceeded its statutory authority in awarding bonus points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area or that agreed to the Certification.
When Congress has "explicitly left a gap for the agency to fill, there is an express delegation of authority to the agency to elucidate a specific provision of the statute by regulation." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 467 U.S. 837, 843-44, 104 S.Ct. 2778, 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). "Such legislative regulations are given controlling weight unless they are arbitrary, capricious or manifestly contrary to the statute." Id. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778. This standard is "deferential and narrow"; there is a " 'high threshold' for setting aside agency action." Alaska Oil & Gas Ass'n v. Jewell , 815 F.3d 544, 554 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting River Runners for Wilderness v. Martin , 593 F.3d 1064, 1067, 1070 (9th Cir. 2010) ). As long as a "reasonable basis exists for the decision"-meaning the agency "considered the relevant factors and articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the choices made"-we presume the action is valid. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, when Congress has explicitly given an agency the substantive authority to prescribe standards, the agency's promulgations are "entitled to more than mere deference or weight"; rather, they are entitled to "legislative effect." Schweiker v. Gray Panthers , 453 U.S. 34, 44, 101 S.Ct. 2633, 69 L.Ed.2d 460 (1981) (quoting Batterton v. Francis , 432 U.S. 416, 425-26, 97 S.Ct. 2399, 53 L.Ed.2d 448 (1977) ).
This highly deferential standard is applicable here. As noted above, the Act gives DOJ broad authority to "promulgate regulations and guidelines to carry out" the Public Safety and Community Policing subchapter, 34 U.S.C. § 10388, authorizing the creation and implementation of a competitive grant program, and to "prescribe by regulation or guidelines" the form of an application and the information it will require, id. § 10382(b). Because Congress authorized DOJ to fill gaps through its promulgation of the Application Guidelines and implementation of the grant program, we give DOJ's inclusion of an illegal immigration focus area and use of the Certification controlling weight unless they are manifestly inconsistent with the statute or lack any reasonable basis, "even if the agency's reading differs from what the court believes is the best statutory interpretation." Glacier Fish Co. v. Pritzker , 832 F.3d 1113, 1121 (9th Cir. 2016) (quoting Nat'l Cable & Telecomms. Ass'n v. Brand X Internet Servs. , 545 U.S. 967, 980, 125 S.Ct. 2688, 162 L.Ed.2d 820 (2005) ).
DOJ's inclusion of immigration-related scoring factors as a component of its implementation of its grant program is well within DOJ's broad authority to carry out the Act. At the threshold, the Application Guidelines' inclusion of the illegal immigration focus area, which asks an applicant to "specify your focus on partnering with federal law enforcement to address illegal immigration for information sharing, [§] 287(g) partnerships, task forces and honoring detainers," is not "manifestly contrary to the statute." Chevron , 467 U.S. at 844, 104 S.Ct. 2778. Nothing in the Act precludes DOJ from allocating federal funds to state or local governments to focus on problems raised by the presence of illegal aliens within their jurisdictions.
Rather, DOJ's determination "that illegal immigration enforcement is a public safety issue and that this issue can be addressed most effectively through the principles of community policing that [DOJ] promotes-including through partnerships and problem-solving techniques," is entirely consistent with the broad scope of the Act. First, DOJ's understanding that illegal immigration presents a public safety issue has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court. See Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 397-98, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012). While "it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States," id. at 407, 132 S.Ct. 2492, the Court has recognized that in some jurisdictions, such as Arizona's "most populous county," aliens who have entered the country illegally "are reported to be responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime," id. at 397-98, 132 S.Ct. 2492. The Court has noted that "[a]ccounts in the record suggest there is an 'epidemic of crime, safety risks, serious property damage, and environmental problems' associated with the influx of illegal migration across private land near the Mexican border." Id. at 398, 132 S.Ct. 2492. Congress has likewise expressed concern about "increasing rates of criminal activity by aliens." Demore v. Kim , 538 U.S. 510, 518, 123 S.Ct. 1708, 155 L.Ed.2d 724 (2003).
Second, DOJ's determination that the techniques of community policing may be used to address this public safety issue is entirely reasonable. As DOJ explains, community policing is an important crime-fighting technique that officers use along with others to address various law-enforcement and community safety goals. The public safety issues that arise from illegal immigration can be addressed through collaborative interactions and information flow between law enforcement and the community, just as with any other sort of public safety issue, such as those arising from "violent crime problems" and other focus areas. If a jurisdiction selects an illegal immigration focus due to community concerns, it is reasonable to consider that officers may be more effective in addressing such issues if they act pursuant to § 287(g) partnerships, which allow state or local officers to perform immigration officer functions, see 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1). Nothing in the Act precludes such cooperation;
rather, the Act requires applicants to "identify related governmental and community initiatives which complement or will be coordinated with the proposal," 34 U.S.C. § 10382(c)(4), and to explain how officers' use of community-oriented policing techniques will be coordinated with such initiatives.
Nor does the Act's community-policing focus limit DOJ to considering only those factors directly related to interaction with the community. Obviously, an officer's responsibilities involve a broad array of tasks, including administrative tasks like sharing information with relevant federal agencies or honoring detainers. Just as DOJ considers a jurisdiction's fiscal health and crime rate, as well as a jurisdiction's attention to other federal priorities like the mental health of officers, giving work to military veterans, and responding to catastrophic events like school shootings, it can also consider a jurisdiction's attention to the federal priority of illegal immigration through the Certification. A jurisdiction's willingness to provide notice that a detained removable alien will be released from custody, or to provide facility access so that federal officials can interview removable aliens while in custody, is consistent with the Act's purpose to enhance public safety, see VCCLEA § 1701(a), through means including both community-oriented policing and attention to intelligence, anti-terror, or homeland security duties. See 34 U.S.C. § 10381(b)(1)-(2), (4).
Finally, DOJ's broad definition of community-oriented policing in the Application Guidelines as "a philosophy that promotes organizational strategies that support the systematic use of partnerships and problem-solving techniques to proactively address the immediate conditions that give rise to public safety issues such as crime, social disorder, and fear of crime," clearly encompasses all DOJ's scoring factors, including partnering with federal law enforcement to address illegal immigration for information sharing, [§] 287(g) partnerships, task forces, and honoring detainers. The Act does not define "community-oriented policing" or delineate what sorts of strategies are sufficiently "community-oriented." See Brand X , 545 U.S. at 980-81, 125 S.Ct. 2688. Therefore, because Congress has not "directly spoken to the precise question at issue," we must defer to DOJ's interpretation so long as it is reasonable, that is, so long as it "reflects a plausible construction of the plain language of the statute and does not otherwise conflict with Congress'[s] expressed intent." Glacier Fish , 832 F.3d at 1120-21 (first quoting Chevron , 467 U.S. at 842, 104 S.Ct. 2778 ; then quoting Rust v. Sullivan , 500 U.S. 173, 184, 111 S.Ct. 1759, 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991) ). This is true even if the agency's interpretation is "not necessarily the only possible interpretation, nor even the interpretation deemed most reasonable by the courts." Entergy Corp. v. Riverkeeper, Inc. , 556 U.S. 208, 218, 129 S.Ct. 1498, 173 L.Ed.2d 369 (2009) (emphasis in original).
Here, DOJ's interpretation is permissible, because it reasonably construes the statutory language ("community-oriented" and "policing") and is consistent with the statute's purposes, which go far beyond interactions between law enforcement and the community. The general purpose of the Act is to enhance the crime prevention functions of state and local law enforcement and to enhance public safety through interacting with and working with the community. See 34 U.S.C. § 10381(b) ; see also VCCLEA § 1701(a) (stating that it is among the Act's purposes "to increase police presence, to expand and improve cooperative efforts between law enforcement agencies and members of the community to address crime and disorder problems, and otherwise to enhance public safety").
The dissent argues that DOJ's interpretation and implementation of the Act may reflect the administration's policy goals, and these goals may change from time to time. Dissent at 1195 & n.48. We agree that an administration's policy goals may influence the selection of factors warranting additional consideration for awarding competitive grants. But Congress contemplated such a result when it enacted a statute that left substantial gaps for the implementing agency to fill. Where Congress affords an agency such discretion, we ask only whether the agency's interpretation was reasonable. See Glacier Fish , 832 F.3d at 1120. Whether an interpretation serves an administration's policy goals has no bearing on that inquiry. See Dep't of Commerce v. New York , - U.S. -, -, 139 S.Ct. 2551, - L.Ed.2d - (2019) ("[A] court may not set aside an agency's policymaking decision solely because it might have been influenced by political considerations or prompted by an Administration's priorities.").
Los Angeles and the dissent also contend that DOJ exceeded its authority by including the option of the illegal immigration focus area and considering whether an applicant submitted the Certification because DOJ is constrained by § 10381(c), which states that the "Attorney General may give preferential consideration, where feasible, to an application" from "an applicant in a state" that has certain human trafficking laws. Dissent at 1192-93. According to this argument, DOJ's inclusion of an illegal immigration focus area in the Application Guidelines renders § 10381(c)(2) and (c)(3) "superfluous" because Congress would not have needed to enact § 10381(c)(2) and (c)(3) if DOJ had the authority to favor applicants based on efforts related to illegal immigration and other extraneous matters. Dissent at 1192-93.
This argument lacks any support in the text or history of the Act. First, it is based on Los Angeles's baseless assumptions that (1) preferring applicants who focus on illegal immigration is the same as preferring states that have enacted specified human trafficking laws, and (2) DOJ could not prefer either without specific authorization from Congress. Nothing in the Act supports these assumptions. First, as we have explained, an award of grant funds to states or localities that intend to focus on illegal immigration is well within the statute's scope, and DOJ has broad discretion to adopt such a focus area. Second, while § 10381(c) encourages DOJ to give preferential consideration to states with specified human trafficking laws, the statute does not indicate whether DOJ would have lacked authority to do so before the enactment of § 10381(c). More important, it is clear that nothing in that section limits DOJ's discretion to select additional factors to assist it in allocating grant funds. See id. § 10382(b). Had Congress intended to limit DOJ's discretion in ranking applications according to various criteria, which DOJ had been doing for years before Congress amended the Act to add § 10381(c), we would expect Congress to give some express indication of such an intent. It did not do so. Accordingly, we reject the argument that § 10381(c) has any bearing on DOJ's current methodology.
We conclude that DOJ did not exceed its statutory authority in including two scoring factors related to illegal immigration as part of its implementation of the grant program.
V
Finally, Los Angeles argues that DOJ violated the APA because it failed to engage in reasoned decisionmaking and because its explanation for its policy is contrary to the evidence before it when it decided to give points for adopting the illegal immigration focus and submitting the Certification.
"One of the basic procedural requirements of administrative rulemaking is that an agency must give adequate reasons for its decisions." Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro , - U.S. -, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2125, 195 L.Ed.2d 382 (2016). The agency satisfies this requirement "when the agency's explanation is clear enough that its 'path may reasonably be discerned.' " Id . (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. Arkansas-Best Freight Sys. , Inc ., 419 U.S. 281, 286, 95 S.Ct. 438, 42 L.Ed.2d 447 (1974) ). The agency need provide only a "minimal level of analysis" to avoid its action being deemed arbitrary and capricious. Id. Although a reviewing court "must not rubber-stamp administrative decisions," it also "must not substitute its judgment for that of the agency." Alaska Oil , 815 F.3d at 554 (internal quotation marks omitted). Agency action may also be deemed arbitrary and capricious if the agency has "offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency, or is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise." Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of the U.S. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983).
According to Los Angeles, DOJ's action was not based on empirical evidence establishing that cooperation between state and local authorities and federal authorities on illegal immigration addresses crime or public safety issues. Los Angeles points to studies it claims show that recidivism rates for illegal aliens are not disproportionate relative to the general population and to news articles describing studies that it claims show that sanctuary policies do not lead to increased crime rates. According to Los Angeles, DOJ ignored these studies and articles, and also failed to make a careful study of how community policing relates to civil immigration enforcement. Because DOJ adopted its two scoring factors without reviewing relevant evidence, Los Angeles argues, DOJ's scoring factors are arbitrary and capricious, and thus invalid under the APA.
We disagree. Under the APA, an agency must give adequate reasons for its decision, and DOJ has done so here. DOJ has reasonably determined that "illegal immigration enforcement is a public safety issue [that] can be addressed most effectively through the principles of community policing." And because the Certification "relate[s] to non-citizens who are being detained and who have committed crimes or are suspected of having committed crimes," DOJ reasonably concluded that "[w]orking with the federal government to enforce the federal immigration laws against aliens who have committed crimes or are suspected of having committed crimes makes communities safer." As the Supreme Court has noted, "increasing rates of criminal activity by aliens" and federal immigration authorities' failure to remove "deportable criminal aliens" have been the subject of congressional concern. Demore , 538 U.S. at 518, 123 S.Ct. 1708.
Moreover, the studies and articles cited by Los Angeles do not undercut DOJ's conclusion that removing aliens who are convicted or suspected of crimes makes communities safer. At most, the studies and articles provide some evidence that the recidivism rate for removable aliens who engaged in criminal activities is comparable to the recidivism rate for U.S. citizens and aliens who are not removable; such studies do not bear on whether addressing illegal immigration enforcement through community-oriented policing can make communities safer. Accordingly, there is no basis for Los Angeles's argument that DOJ acted counter to the evidence before it.
Los Angeles may believe that addressing illegal immigration is not the most effective way to improve public safety, but the wisdom of DOJ's policy is not an element of our arbitrary and capricious review. We may not "substitute [our] judgment for that of the agency." State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. And DOJ "need not demonstrate to [our] satisfaction that the reasons for the new policy are better than the reasons for the old one; it suffices that the new policy is permissible under the statute, that there are good reasons for it, and that the agency believes it to be better[.]"
FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. , 556 U.S. 502, 515, 129 S.Ct. 1800, 173 L.Ed.2d 738 (2009) (emphasis in original).
We conclude that DOJ's policy decision has a "rational connection" to the goal of enhancing public safety and was not counter to the evidence before the agency, and therefore is not arbitrary and capricious. Alaska Oil , 815 F.3d at 554.

In sum, DOJ's use of the two scoring factors is well within its statutory discretion, is not arbitrary and capricious, and complies with the constitutional restrictions imposed on congressional action under principles of federalism and the Spending Clause.
REVERSED.
The Act includes other technical requirements for awarding grants. For instance, each state that applies or that contains an applying entity must receive, together with any grantees in the state, at least .5 percent of a fiscal year's total allocation for the grant program. 34 U.S.C. § 10381(f). Second, allocated funds must be divided equally between small (fewer than 150,000 people) and large (more than 150,000 people) jurisdictions. Id. § 10261(a)(11)(B). Third, a grant cannot account for more than 75 percent of a recipient program's costs, although the Attorney General can waive this requirement. Id. § 10381(g).
Contrary to the dissent, Dissent at 1183 n.1, 1187-88, Congress has set aside funds that could be expended for any of § 10381 's purposes. Appropriations bills have directed funds "for community policing development activities in furtherance of [§ 10381 's purposes]" and "for the collaborative reform model of technical assistance in furtherance of [§ 10381 's purposes]," Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 115-31, Div. B, Tit. II, 131 Stat. 135, 207 (2017), as well as for the hiring and rehiring of additional career law enforcement officers.
A § 287(g) partnership is a written agreement between the Attorney General and a state or a local jurisdiction, under which "an officer or employee of the State or subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens in the United States (including the transportation of such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local law." 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1).
An "immigration detainer" is issued by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to advise another law enforcement agency that DHS seeks custody of an alien for arrest and removal, and serves as "a request that such agency advise the Department, prior to release of the alien, in order for the Department to arrange to assume custody, in situations when gaining immediate physical custody is either impracticable or impossible." 8 C.F.R. § 287.7(a). Upon DHS's request, a law enforcement agency "shall maintain custody of the alien for a period not to exceed 48 hours," excluding weekends and holidays, "in order to permit assumption of custody by" DHS. Id. § 287.7(d).
According to DOJ, it "does not disclose the number of points assigned to any particular answer, because disclosing the scoring system could skew the application process and subject that process to manipulation."
Our analysis requires us to bridge one gap in existing Spending Clause precedent-that the principles of Dole and NFIB apply to agency-drawn conditions on grants to states and localities just as they do to conditions Congress directly places on grants. In both Dole and NFIB , Congress had written the challenged conditions directly into the statutes authorizing the grants. Here, conversely, Congress delegated the task of specifying these conditions to DOJ. We see no reason why the addition of an agency middleman either expands or contracts Congress's power to "provide for the . general Welfare," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, and thus analyze DOJ's conditions under the principles of Dole and NFIB .
Because DOJ's scoring process does not coerce an applicant or authorize the federal government to exercise any control over state or local law enforcement, it does not violate 34 U.S.C. § 10228(a), which states: "Nothing in this chapter or any other Act shall be construed to authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over any police force or any other criminal justice agency of any State or any political subdivision thereof." Id. § 10228(a). We reject Los Angeles's argument to the contrary.
In addition to listing the immigration focus area, the Application Guidelines list multiple other focus areas, including violent crime, traffic and pedestrian problems, and "quality of life policing." While the Act does not expressly mention any of these focus areas, its gives DOJ broad discretion to identify and rank such a range of goals. Given DOJ's authority to administer the grant program along these lines, the dissent's argument that immigration enforcement cannot be a permissible focus area because the Act makes no mention of immigration enforcement, Dissent at 1187, is meritless.
Los Angeles argues that § 287(g) partnerships cannot be part of a federally funded initiative because 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) requires § 287(g) partnerships to be undertaken "at the expense of the State or political subdivision." See also Dissent at 1193 (stating that a local officer's participation in a § 287(g) partnership "must be 'at the expense of the State or political subdivision' " (emphasis added) (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) ). Los Angeles and the dissent misunderstand both § 1357(g)(1) and the grant program. Section 1357(g)(1) clarifies only that states and localities are not entitled to federal reimbursement for work carried out in a § 287(g) partnerships. See 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(1) (stating that an officer or employee of the state or subdivision who is qualified to perform certain functions of an immigration officer "may carry out such function at the expense of the State or political subdivision"). The statute does not forbid the use of federal funds to assist a state or local entity that has entered into such a partnership. Moreover, DOJ has made clear that grant funds may be used only to hire or rehire officers, not for any state or local expenses of a § 287(g) agreement.
The dissent offers a lengthy political history of community-oriented policing, and asserts that Congress incorporated the dissent's view of the term "community-oriented policing" in the statute. Dissent at -1184-86, 1185 n.39. But Congress enacts statutory text, not political history, and the contours of "community-oriented policing" are not "unambiguously expressed by the statutory language." Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 89 v. Dep't of Educ. , 550 U.S. 81, 93, 127 S.Ct. 1534, 167 L.Ed.2d 449 (2007). "Policing" that is "oriented" toward the "community" can describe a broad set of policing techniques. These techniques may include direct police interactions with the community in some circumstances. But the statute does not limit community-oriented policing to such strategies, and other techniques may be better suited to address the community's priorities, such as public safety issues related to illegal immigration. As the dissent acknowledges, problem solving-"the process through which the specific concerns of communities are identified and through which the most appropriate remedies to abate these problems are found"-is a key component of community-oriented policing, Dissent at 1184-85, and a range of different remedies may be valid for furthering the statute's public safety goals. In light of the statute's broad purposes, we conclude "the language of the statute is broad enough to permit" DOJ's reasonable definition of community-oriented policing. Zuni Pub. Sch. Dist. , 550 U.S. at 100, 127 S.Ct. 1534.
Although unnecessary to our analysis, the legislative history of the Act supports DOJ's broad interpretation of community-oriented policing. While facilitating increased interaction between law enforcement and members of the community was one focus of community-oriented policing as described in the legislative history, see H.R. Rep. No. 103-324, at 6 (1993), the Judiciary Committee report on the bill also notes intent to reduce law enforcement's reliance on reactive policing and renew law enforcement's ability "to anticipate and prevent crime by use of community-oriented, problem solving techniques," id. DOJ's definition of community-oriented policing incorporates the focus on community interaction with the additional goal of supporting proactive policing that involves "analyzing crime and disorder problems, working with the community on a search for alternative solutions, implementing solutions, and evaluating their effectiveness." Id. at 7.
See, e.g. , Bianca E. Bersani, An Examination of First and Second Generation Immigrant Offending Trajectories , 31 Just. Q. 315, 335 (2014); Jennifer S. Wong, Laura J. Hickman & Marika Suttorp-Booth, Examining Recidivism Among Foreign-Born Jail Inmates: Does Immigration Status Make a Difference over the Long Term? , 16 Global Crime 265, 280-81 (2015).