Opinion ID: 4510461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Byrne Justice Assistance Grant Program

Text: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“Byrne Program”), codified at 34 U.S.C. §§ 10151–10158, is the vehicle through which Congress annually provides more than $250 million in federal funding for State and local criminal justice efforts.2 The Byrne Program was created in 2006 as part of the Violence Against Women and Department of Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109‐162, § 1111, 119 Stat. 2960, 3094 (2006). That Act amended provisions of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90‐351, tit. I, 82 Stat. 197, which itself had 2The Byrne Program is named for New York City Police Officer Edward Byrne who, at age 22, was shot to death while guarding the home of a Guyanese immigrant cooperating with authorities investigating drug trafficking. The case is well known in this circuit, where five persons were convicted in the Eastern District of New York for their roles in Byrne’s murder. Among these was Howard “Pappy” Mason, a drug dealer who, from his New York State prison cell, ordered subordinates to kill a police officer in retaliation for Mason’s own incarceration. See Joseph P. Fried, Officer Guarding Drug Witness Is Slain, N.Y. Times, Feb. 27, 1988, at A1, 34; Leonard Buder, Trial Is By a Defendant In Police Slaying, N.Y. Times, Nov. 29, 1989, at B5. 9 provided federal funding for State and local law enforcement initiatives. The Byrne Program is a formula grant program, i.e., Congress appropriates a fixed amount of funding for the program and specifies “how the funds will be allocated among the eligible recipients, as well as the method by which an applicant must demonstrate its eligibility for that funding.” Office of Justice Programs, Grant Process Overview.3 The Byrne Program’s statutory formula awards the States 50% of allocated funds based on their relative populations, see 34 U.S.C. § 10156(a)(1)(A), and the other 50% based on their relative rates of violent crime, see id. § 10156(a)(1)(B). The formula further provides that, of total Byrne funds awarded to a State, the State itself keeps 60%, with the remaining 40% percent allocated to local governments within the State. See id. § 10156(b). Congress affords States and localities wide discretion in using Byrne grants. While awarded funds cannot substitute for a state’s own expenditures, see id. § 10153(a)(1), Byrne grants may be used to support such diverse needs as “additional personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems,” pertaining to a broad range of criminal justice initiatives: (A) Law enforcement programs. (B) Prosecution and court programs. (C) Prevention and education programs. (D) Corrections and community corrections 3 Available at http://go.usa.gov/xPmkA (last visited Feb. 24, 2020). 10 programs. (E) Drug treatment and enforcement programs. (F) Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. (G) Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). (H) Mental health programs and related law enforcement and corrections programs, including behavioral programs and crisis intervention teams, id. § 10152(a). As Congress has explained, its intent was thus to afford States and localities the “flexibility to spend money for programs that work for them rather than to impose a ‘one‐size fits all’ solution.” H.R. REP. NO. 109‐233, at 89 (2005), as reprinted in 2005 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1636, 1640. Plaintiffs have received Byrne grants each year since that program’s inception. They have used these grants for a variety of purposes, including, but not limited to, supporting various investigative task forces, funding both prosecutors’ and public defenders’ offices, paying 911 operators, improving their criminal records systems and forensic laboratories, identifying and mentoring criminally at‐risk youth and young adults, operating drug courts and diversion programs for nonviolent felony offenders, mitigating gang violence in prison, and funding prisoner re‐entry services. While the Byrne fund‐distribution formula is statutorily mandated, and while Byrne applicants can use such funds for almost any law‐enforcement‐related purpose, no State or locality is automatically entitled to receive a Byrne grant. Rather, a jurisdiction seeking Byrne funding must submit an application satisfying a host of statutory requirements. For example, a jurisdiction is statutorily 11 required to make its Byrne Program application public and to afford an opportunity for public comment before submitting its final application to the Attorney General. See 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(3)(A)– (B). Also, a Byrne grant application must include a “comprehensive Statewide plan” detailing, as specified in § 10153(a)(6)(A)–(E), how awarded grants will be used to improve the jurisdiction’s criminal justice system. A Byrne grant applicant must satisfy these, and all other statutory requirements, “in such form as the Attorney General may require,” id. § 10153(a), and subject to such “rules” as the Attorney General “shall issue” to carry out the program, id. § 10155.4 Three statutory requirements for Byrne grants are particularly relevant to this appeal. First, an applicant must certify that it “will comply with all provisions of this part [i.e., part of chapter pertaining to Byrne Program] and all other applicable Federal laws.” Id. § 10153(a)(5)(D). Second, an applicant must provide assurance that it “shall maintain and report such data, records, and information (programmatic and financial) as the Attorney General may reasonably require.” Id. § 10153(a)(4). Third, an applicant must certify 4 The APA defines the term “rule” broadly to mean “the whole or a part of an agency statement of general or particular applicability and future effect designed to implement, interpret, or prescribe law or policy or describing organization, procedure, or practice requirements of an agency . . . .” 5 U.S.C. § 551(4); see Safari Club Int’l v. Zinke, 878 F.3d 316, 332 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (recognizing that APA defines “rule” “very broadly” (internal quotation marks omitted)). At the same time, the APA exempts rules pertaining to grants from the notice‐and‐comment procedures generally attending federal rule‐making. See 5 U.S.C. § 553(a)(2); City of Los Angeles v. McLaughlin, 865 F.2d 1084, 1087 (9th Cir. 1989); cf. Richard B. Cappalli, Rights and Remedies Under Federal Grants 247 (1979) (observing that “a significant number of formula [grant] programs contain no mention of Due Process rights”). 12 that “there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies.” Id. § 10153(a)(5)(C). The Attorney General’s authority to disapprove Byrne applications not satisfying the program’s statutory requirements is implicit in the statutory provision tempering that authority with a required opportunity for correction: the Attorney General “shall not finally disapprove” a deficient application “without first affording the applicant reasonable notice of any deficiencies in the application and opportunity for correction and reconsideration.” Id. § 10154. The authority to deny funds is further evident in Congress’s instruction as to how appropriated funds are to be distributed if the Attorney General determines “that a State will be unable to qualify or receive [Byrne Program] funds”: that State’s allocation under the statutory formula “shall be awarded by the Attorney General to units of local government, or combinations thereof, within such State,” giving priority to those with the highest reported number of violent crimes. Id. § 10156(f). Such denial authority is, moreover, consistent with the discretion Congress has afforded the Attorney General to waive certain statutory program requirements, see id. § 10152(c)(2), and to develop “guidelines” for the statutorily required “program assessment component” of every Byrne grant that is awarded, id. § 10152(c)(1). The Attorney General is statutorily authorized to delegate the “powers and functions” thus vested in him by Title 34 to the AAG responsible for DOJ’s Office of Justice Programs, which office now administers the Byrne Program. Id. § 10102(a)(6). Congress has made 13 plain that the powers and functions that may be so delegated “includ[e] placing special conditions on all grants, and determining priority purposes for formula grants.” Id. II. The Challenged Immigration‐Related Conditions In soliciting 2017 applications for Byrne Program grants, then‐ Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions III, on July 25, 2017, announced the three immigration‐related conditions at issue in this case. First, the Certification Condition requires a Byrne grant applicant to execute a “Certification of Compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373.” App. at 288, ¶¶ 52–53. That statute, which the Attorney General identified as an “applicable Federal law” for purposes of the certification requirement of 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D), see supra at 12, states, in pertinent part, as follows: Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service5 information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual. 5The Immigration and Naturalization Service, which had been a part of DOJ, see 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(34), was disbanded in 2002, see 6 U.S.C. § 291, and its duties divided among three services operating within the new cabinet‐level Department of Homeland Security: the United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Service, and the Customs and Border Protection Service, see id. §§ 111, 211, 251–52, 271. 14 18 U.S.C. § 1373(a). The Certification Condition thus requires that, with respect to the “program or activity” funded in whole or part under this award (including any such “program or activity” of any subrecipient at any tier), throughout the period of performance for the award, no State or local government entity, ‐agency, or ‐official may prohibit or in any way restrict—(1) any government entity or ‐official from sending or receiving information regarding citizenship or immigration status as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a); or (2) a government entity or ‐agency from sending, requesting or receiving, maintaining, or exchanging information regarding immigration status as described in 8 U.S.C. § 1373(b). App. at 288–89, ¶¶ 52–53. Second, the Notice Condition requires Byrne grant recipients to have in place throughout the grant period a law, rule, or policy for informing federal authorities, upon request, of the scheduled release date of an alien in the recipient’s custody. It states that, as of the date the recipient accepts [a Byrne] award, and throughout the remainder of the period of performance for the award— ... A State statute, or a State rule, ‐regulation, ‐policy, or ‐practice, must be in place that is designed to ensure that, when a State (or State‐contracted) correctional facility receives from DHS a formal written request authorized by the Immigration and Nationality Act that seeks advance notice of the scheduled release date and time for a particular alien in such facility, then such facility will 15 honor such request and—as early as practicable . . .— provide the requested notice to DHS. Id. at 291, ¶ 55(1)(B). Finally, the Access Condition requires grant recipients to have a law, rule, or policy in place allowing federal authorities to meet with incarcerated aliens in order to inquire about their rights to remain in the United States. It states that, as of the date the recipient accepts [a Byrne] award, and throughout the remainder of the period of performance for the award— ... A State statute, or a State rule, ‐regulation, ‐policy, or ‐practice, must be in place that is designed to ensure that agents of the United States acting under color of federal law . . . are given . . . access [to] any State (or State‐ contracted) correctional facility for the purpose of permitting such agents to meet with individuals who are (or are believed by such agents to be) aliens and to inquire as to such individuals’ rights to be or remain in the United States. Id. at 291, ¶ 55(1)(A). In announcing these conditions, Attorney General Sessions stated an intent to “increase information sharing between federal, state, and local law enforcement, ensuring that federal immigration authorities have the information they need to enforce immigration laws and keep our communities safe.” Press Release, Attorney General Sessions Announces Immigration Compliance Requirements 16 for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Programs (July 25, 2017).6 The Attorney General was specifically critical of “[s]o‐called ‘sanctuary’ policies [that] make all of us less safe because they intentionally undermine our laws and protect illegal aliens who have committed crimes.” Id. He stated that DOJ needed to “encourage these ‘sanctuary’ jurisdictions to change their policies and partner with federal law enforcement to remove [alien] criminals.” Thus, “[f]rom now on,” DOJ would “only provide Byrne JAG grants to cities and states that comply with federal law, allow federal immigration access to detention facilities, and provide 48 hours[’] notice before they release an illegal alien wanted by federal authorities.” Id.7