Opinion ID: 4510461
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: “As Applied” Review

Text: The district court ruled not only that the Certification Condition was not statutorily authorized, but also that it could not be so authorized without violating the Constitution. Specifically, the district court held that 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the law for which the condition 49 required certification, “is facially unconstitutional under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment,” and, as such, “drops out of the possible pool of ‘applicable federal laws’” requiring § 10153(a)(5)(D) certification. New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 237 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district court did not have to reach this constitutional question, having already found the Certification Condition to violate the APA. See Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass’n, 485 U.S. 439, 445 (1988) (noting that “longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them”); accord Camreta v. Greene, 563 U.S. 692, 705 (2011). This court, however, cannot avoid the issue in light of our ruling that the Certification Condition is statutorily authorized. For reasons briefly explained herein, we think the district court’s reasoning insufficient to support its declaration of facial unconstitutionality. We do not pursue the matter in detail, however, because § 1373’s constitutionality is properly assessed here not on the face of the statute, but as applied to clarify a federal funding requirement.25 In that context, § 1373 does not constitute commandeering in violation of the Tenth Amendment. 25As the Supreme Court has long recognized, “as‐applied challenges are the basic building blocks of constitutional adjudication,” and it is not the court’s “traditional institutional role to resolve questions of constitutionality with respect to each potential situation that might develop.” Gonzales v. Carhart, 550 U.S. 124, 168 (2007) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see Village of Hoffman Estates v. Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U.S. 489, 494–95 (1982) (holding that courts 50 To the extent the district court thought that § 1373 had to be constitutional in all its applications to be identified as an “applicable Federal law[]” warranting § 10153(a)(5)(D) certification, it was mistaken. Even assuming arguendo that § 1373 can constitutionally be applied to States and localities only when they are seeking federal funding—a matter we do not here decide—the principle of severability would warrant upholding the statute as so narrowed. See Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. 678, 685 (1987) (discussing severability in addressing constitutional challenges to statutes); accord National Fed’n of Indep. Bus. (“NFIB”) v. Sibelius, 567 U.S. 519, 586–88 (2012) (severing part of Affordable Care Act raising constitutional concerns and upholding remainder); United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 245 (2005) (remedying constitutional defect in Sentencing Guidelines by severing provision for mandatory application). There can be no question that Congress would have enacted the law, even as so narrowed. Legislative history indicates that § 1373’s enactment was animated by reports that States and localities receiving federal should consider constitutional challenge to statute as applied to plaintiff before considering other applications); Yazoo & Miss. Valley R.R. Co. v. Jackson Vinegar Co., 226 U.S. 217, 219–20 (1912) (upholding statute as applied to instant case without speculating as to how it might apply in other circumstances); accord United States v. Holcombe, 883 F.3d 12, 17 (2d Cir. 2018) (explaining that where First Amendment rights are not implicated, court considers constitutional challenge “in light of the specific facts of the case at hand” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Section 1373 is not here challenged as constitutionally vague, much less constitutionally vague in a way implicating First Amendment rights, so as to warrant more than as‐ applied review. See Farrell v. Burke, 449 F.3d 470, 496 (2d Cir. 2006) (“The general rule disfavoring facial vagueness challenges does not apply in the First Amendment context.”); see also United States v. Davis, 139 S. Ct. 2319, 2323 (2019) (“In our constitutional order, a vague law is no law at all.”). 51 funding were hindering cooperation with immigration authorities. See supra at 17–20. Nor is there any reason to think that the law would not operate as Congress intended as applied in the funding context. See generally Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Brock, 480 U.S. at 684–85 (discussing two factors informing severability). With this understanding, that, in the end, the proper scope of constitutional inquiry is “as applied,” we briefly discuss concerns raised by the district court’s facial assessment before explaining our conclusion that § 1373 does not violate the Tenth Amendment as applied here to States and localities seeking Byrne Program grants. (2) The District Court’s Identification of Facial Unconstitutionality The Tenth Amendment states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” U.S. CONST. amend. X. From this text, the Supreme Court has derived an “anticommandeering principle,” which prohibits the federal government from compelling the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997) (“The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.”). This court has already considered, and rejected, a facial commandeering challenge to § 1373. See City of New York v. United States, 179 F.3d 29 (2d Cir. 1999). We reasoned that § 1373 does not 52 “compel[] state and local governments to enact or administer any federal regulatory program.” Id. at 35. Nor does it “affirmatively conscript[] states, localities, or their employees into the federal government’s service.” Id. Rather, the law prohibits state and local governments and officials “only from directly restricting the voluntary exchange of immigration information” with federal immigration authorities. Id. The district court acknowledged this precedent, but concluded that it does not survive Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018).26 The Supreme Court there held that federal legislation prohibiting States from authorizing sports gambling violates the Tenth Amendment’s anticommandeering rule because it “unequivocally dictates what a state legislature may and may not do.” Id. at 1478. The Court explained that it did not matter whether Congress issued such a dictate by commanding affirmative action or imposing a prohibition: “The basic principle—that Congress cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures—applies in either event.” Id. The district court concluded that Murphy’s reasoning required it to hold § 1373 facially violative of the Tenth Amendment because the statute’s proscriptions prevent States from “adopting [immigration] policies contrary to those preferred by the federal government,” or “extricating themselves from federal immigration 26It has long been the rule in this circuit that a panel decision controls “unless and until . . . reversed en banc or by the Supreme Court.” In re Arab Bank, PLC Alien Tort Statute Litig., 808 F.3d 144, 154 (2d Cir. 2015) (internal quotation marks omitted). 53 enforcement.” New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 235 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). Murphy may well have clarified that prohibitions as well as mandates can manifest impermissible commandeering. But the conclusion that § 1373, on its face, violates the Tenth Amendment does not follow. A commandeering challenge to a federal statute depends on there being pertinent authority “reserved to the States.” In Murphy, there was no question that, but for the challenged federal law, the States’ police power allowed them to decide whether to permit sports gambling within their borders. That conclusion is not so obvious in the immigration context where it is the federal government that holds “broad,” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 394, and “preeminent” power, Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. at 10. Title 8 of the United States Code, commonly known as the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”), see 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., is Congress’s “extensive and complex” codification of that power, Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 395. This does not mean that States can never enact any laws pertaining to aliens. See id. at 404 (observing that “[w]hen there was no comprehensive federal program regulating the employment of unauthorized aliens . . . State had authority to pass its own laws on the subject”). But courts must carefully identify the powers reserved to States in this area of extensive and complex federal legislation and the effect of their exercise on federal immigration laws and policies. It is doubtful that States have reserved power to adopt—in the words of the district court—immigration policies “contrary to those preferred 54 by the federal government.” New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 235 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added). As Chief Justice Marshall famously pronounced, “The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government.” McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. at 436. The Supreme Court recently made the same point in the immigration context. While acknowledging a State’s “understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration,” the Court held that the “State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.” Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. at 416. Here, the district court declared § 1373 facially violative of the Tenth Amendment without identifying what reserved power States have to enact laws or policies seemingly foreclosed by 8 U.S.C. § 1373, i.e., laws prohibiting their officials and agencies from engaging in even voluntary communications about citizenship and immigration status with federal authorities. A court undertaking that inquiry would have to recognize, as the Supreme Court has, that “[c]onsultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system” established by the INA. Id. at 411. A court would then have to consider how various INA provisions establish that consultation feature. In Arizona v. United States, the Supreme Court discussed various INA provisions encouraging or prohibiting restrictions on federal‐state sharing of immigration‐status information before concluding that the “federal scheme thus leaves room for a [State] policy requiring state officials to contact [federal 55 immigration authorities] as a routine matter.” Id. at 413 (emphasis added). The same conclusion may not be so easy to reach, however, with respect to a State policy prohibiting information sharing. Among the statutes cited in Arizona v. United States to illustrate the importance placed on federal‐state consultation by the INA is 8 U.S.C. § 1644. See 567 U.S. at 412–13. As discussed supra at 17–20, § 1644, like § 1373, prohibits restricting State or local government entities from communicating with federal immigration authorities “‘regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an alien in the United States.’’’ Id. (quoting 8 U.S.C. § 1644). Further, even outside the immigration context, the Supreme Court has not decided whether a federal law imposing “purely ministerial reporting requirements” on the States violates the Tenth Amendment. See Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. at 936 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (noting open question regarding statute’s missing child reporting requirement). While this authority casts doubt on the district court’s identification of facial unconstitutionality, we do not ourselves pursue the point further because, even assuming some power reserved for the States to prohibit information sharing with federal immigration authorities, we conclude that § 1373 does not violate the Tenth Amendment as applied here to a federal funding requirement.27 27For that same reason, we need not conclusively decide the preemptive effect of § 1373. We note only that, insofar as the district court concluded that the statute could claim no preemptive effect because it confers a “purported federal right to transmit information only on government entities and officials,” not on private 56 (3) Section 1373 Raises No Commandeering Concerns as Applied to a Federal Funding Requirement While Congress cannot regulate the States, its constitutional powers, notably under the Spending Clause, see U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 1, do allow it to “fix the terms on which it shall disburse federal money to the States,” Pennhurst State Sch. & Hosp. v. Halderman, 451 U.S. at 17. By setting such terms, Congress can “influenc[e] a State’s policy choices,” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. at 166, and even “implement federal policy it could not impose directly under its enumerated powers,” NFIB v. Sibelius, 567 U.S. at 578; see South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 207 (1987) (explaining that “objectives not thought to be within Article I’s enumerated legislative fields may nevertheless be attained through the use of the spending power and the conditional grant of federal funds” (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 66 (1936) (holding that Congress’s power to place conditions on disbursement of federal funds “is not limited by the direct grants of legislative power found in the Constitution”). Thus, where Congress places conditions on a State’s receipt of federal funds—whether directly, or by delegation of persons, its focus may have been too narrow. New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 235 (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted); see Murphy v. Nat’l Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 138 S. Ct. at 1480 (observing that “Constitution . . . confers upon Congress the power to regulate individuals, not States” (internal quotation marks omitted)). As already noted, § 1373 is one provision of a larger statute, the INA, which certainly confers rights and places restrictions on large numbers of private persons. 57 clarifying authority to an executive agency—there is no commandeering of reserved State power so long as the State has “a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds.” NFIB v. Sibelius, 567 U.S. at 578.28 A State is deprived of “legitimate choice” only when the federal government imposes grant conditions that pass the point at which “pressure turns into compulsion.” Id. at 577–78 (internal quotation marks omitted). On this point, even the NFIB dissenters agreed. See id. at 681 (Scalia, J., with Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting) (observing that “courts should not conclude that legislation is unconstitutional . . . unless the coercive nature of an offer is unmistakably clear”). Pressure can turn into compulsion when the 28The law further requires that federal grant conditions (1) promote the “general welfare,” (2) “unambiguously” inform States what is demanded of them, (3) reasonably relate “to the federal interest in particular national projects or programs,” and not “induce the States to engage in activities that would themselves be unconstitutional.” South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. at 207–08, 210 (internal quotation marks omitted). None of these requirements is at issue on this appeal. Section 10153(a)(5)(D)’s requirement that Byrne grant applicants certify their willingness to comply with “all . . . applicable Federal laws” promotes the respect for law necessary to the general welfare. See, e.g., City of Los Angeles v. Barr, 929 F.3d 1163, 1176 (9th Cir. 2019) (“[C]ooperation 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.”). Such a certification condition reasonably relates to the Byrne Program, whose focus, after all, is law enforcement. For reasons discussed supra at 47–48, Congress avoids ambiguity by itself stating that § 10153(a)(5)(D) certification must be made as to all applicable Federal laws, and then authorizing the Attorney General to require certification in a form that references specifically identified applicable laws. Finally, nothing about § 10153(a)(5)(D) induces unconstitutional conduct by the State‐applicants. 58 amount of funding that a State would lose by not acceding to the federal conditions is so significant to the States’ overall operations as to leave it with no real choice but to agree. Such was the case with the Medicaid expansion provision of the Affordable Care Act, which the Supreme Court held invalid in NFIB v. Sebelius because it threatened States rejecting expansion with the withholding of 100% of their Medicaid funding, which constituted 10% to 16% of most States’ total budgets. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he threatened loss of over 10 percent of a State’s overall budget . . . is economic dragooning that leaves the States with no real option but to acquiesce in the Medicaid expansion.” Id. at 581– 82 (describing condition as “a gun to the head”). The funding loss associated with most grant conditions, however, does not raise such coercion concerns. See id. at 684–85 (Scalia, J., with Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting) (observing that Medicaid expansion provision was “quite unlike anything that we have seen in a prior spending‐power case” in that it “threatened to withhold 42.3% of all federal outlays to the States”). In South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court described a threatened loss of 5% of federal highway funding—less than 0.5% of South Dakota’s budget—if the state did not raise its legal drinking age to 21, as only “mild encouragement” and “a valid use of the spending power.” 483 U.S. at 211–12. This case is much more akin to Dole than to NFIB. While plaintiffs emphasize that a failure to provide § 10153(a)(5)(D) certification in a form acceptable to the Attorney General, i.e., a form 59 certifying a willingness to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, can result in the denial of any Byrne funding for that year, plaintiffs do not—and cannot—claim that such a loss represents so significant a percentage of their annual budgets as to cross the line from pressure to coercion. For example, New York’s anticipated 2017 Byrne award is $8,879,161, a significant amount of money to be sure, but one representing less than 0.1% of the State’s annual $152.3 billion budget, a smaller percentage loss even than that in Dole.29 Massachusetts’ anticipated 2017 Byrne award is $3,453,006, also representing less than 0.1% of its annual $38.92 billion budget.30 Thus, however much the plaintiff States would prefer to receive Byrne awards without having to certify their willingness to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, they cannot complain that the consequences for failing to do so are so severe as to leave them with no real choice in the matter. As the Supreme Court has observed in connection with the conditions attached to most federal funding programs: “The States are separate and independent sovereigns. Sometimes they have to act like it.” NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. at 579. In sum, the district court erred in holding 8 U.S.C. § 1373 unconstitutional because the statute does not violate the 29See NEW YORK DIVISION OF THE BUDGET, FY 2017 ENACTED BUDGET FINANCIAL PLAN 69 (May 2016), available at https://www.budget.ny.gov/pubs/ archive/fy17archive/enactedfy17/FY2017FP.pdf. 30See Press Release, Governor Baker Signs Fiscal Year 2017 Budget (July 8, 2016), available at https: www.mass.gov/news/governor‐baker‐signs‐fiscal‐year‐2017‐ budget. 60 anticommandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment as applied here to a federal funding requirement. In the absence of any such Tenth Amendment concern, and in light of our holding that the challenged Certification Condition is statutorily authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D), we conclude that the condition does not violate either the APA or the Constitution. Accordingly, we vacate the district court’s injunction prohibiting application of the Certification Condition. 3. The Notice Condition Is Statutorily Authorized by 8 U.S.C. §§ 10153(a)(4), 10153(a)(5)(C), and 10155 The challenged Notice Condition requires States and localities accepting Byrne grants to have in effect during the grant period a “statute, or a state rule, ‐regulation, ‐policy, or ‐practice” for their criminal detention facilities to respond “as early as practicable” to written requests from federal immigration authorities for notice of identified aliens’ scheduled release dates. Supra at 15–16 (quoting condition). The Attorney General’s statutory authority to impose this condition derives from 34 U.S.C. §§ 10153(a)(4), 10153(a)(5)(C), and 10155. Section 10153(a)(4) requires a State or locality seeking Byrne funding to include in its application, “in such form as the Attorney General may require,” “[a]n assurance” that throughout the grant period, “the applicant shall maintain and report such data, records, and information (programmatic and financial) as the Attorney General may reasonably require.” Section 10153(a)(5)(C) requires a 61 Byrne grant applicant to provide “[a] certification, made in a form acceptable to the Attorney General,” that “there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies.” Section 10155 authorizes the Attorney General to “issue rules to carry out” these requirements and any other parts of the Byrne Program. The district court did not discuss these statutory conditions. It concluded simply that the Notice Condition was not authorized by § 10102(a)(6), as DOJ maintained. The Third Circuit, however, did consider §§ 10153(a)(4) and 10153(a)(5)(C). It concluded that § 10153(a)(4) did not authorize the Notice Condition because “[its] data‐reporting requirement is expressly limited to ‘programmatic and financial’ information—i.e., information regarding the handling of federal funds and the programs to which those funds are directed. It does not cover Department priorities unrelated to the grant program.” City of Philadelphia v. Attorney Gen., 916 F.3d at 285. As for § 10153(a)(5)(C), the Third Circuit concluded that it did not authorize the Notice Condition because its “coordination requirement” operated only in the past tense, i.e, “to require certification that there was appropriate coordination in connection with the grantee’s application. This does not serve as a basis to impose an ongoing requirement to coordinate on matters unrelated to the use of grant funds.” Id. (emphases in original). To explain why we conclude otherwise, we discuss each statutory requirement in turn. 62 a. Section 10153(a)(4)’s Reporting Requirement The plain language of § 10153(a)(4) authorizes the Attorney General to decide both what data, records, and information a Byrne grant recipient must maintain and report and the form of an applicant’s assurance that it will do so. This authority is cabined only by the parenthetical modifier “(programmatic and financial),” which serves to limit the referenced data, records, and information to those pertaining to the particular program being funded by a Byrne grant or to related financial matters. In this respect, at least, we agree with the Third Circuit. See id. But unlike that court, we think the release information required by the Notice Condition is “programmatic,” at least for Byrne‐funded programs that relate in any way to the criminal prosecution, incarceration, or release of persons, some of whom will inevitably be aliens subject to removal.31 This includes most, if not all, of the programs for which plaintiffs seek Byrne funding, for example, (1) programs for task forces targeting certain crimes, the object of which is undoubtedly the arrest, prosecution, and eventual incarceration of perpetrators; (2) programs for prosecutors’ offices, whose attorneys decide when to pursue (or forego) the prosecution and incarceration 31As this court observed in Cuomo v. Barr, 7 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1993), plaintiff “New York houses many illegal aliens in its prison system. As of March 1992, New York held approximately 60,000 prisoners in state correctional facilities, 8% of whom were known to be aliens and an additional 4% of whom were suspected to be aliens. Of this number, 6,096 had been convicted of aggravated felonies, making them subject to deportation.” Id. at 18. While the record on appeal does not provide current statistics, there is no reason to suspect a marked decline in these percentages. 63 of criminal suspects; (3) programs for defenders’ offices, whose attorneys work to secure persons’ release from criminal detention and to avoid their conviction and incarceration; (4) diversion programs for persons who might otherwise remain in criminal custody; (5) programs for persons while incarcerated or for the facilities maintaining them; (6) programs for persons upon their release from incarceration. As to such programs, we conclude that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(4) to require Byrne grant recipients to report when identified aliens in their custody will be released.32 Insofar as the Notice Condition specifically requires a grant applicant to have a statute, rule, regulation, policy, or practice in place for its criminal detention facilities to report identified aliens’ release dates “as early as practicable” after receipt of a written federal request, we are satisfied that the requirement falls within the Attorney General’s authority to determine the “form” of an acceptable Byrne grant application, which necessarily includes the form of an acceptable assurance. 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a). That conclusion is reinforced by the Attorney General’s authority to “issue rules to carry out this part.” Id. § 10155. See generally Federal Election Campaign Comm’n v. Democratic Senatorial Campaign Comm., 454 U.S. 27, 37 (1981) (“[D]eference should be presumptively afforded” to 32Because plaintiffs have not sought to distinguish among their grant purposes in defending the challenged injunction and judgment, we have no occasion on this appeal to consider whether Byrne Program funding could be sought for a purpose so unrelated to prosecution, incarceration, or release that the Notice Condition would not be statutorily authorized in those circumstances. 64 agency authorized to make rules in administering statute.); National Broad. Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 215, 219 (1943) (explaining that statute delegating authority, inter alia, to “[m]ake such rules and regulations . . . as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this Act” gave agency “expansive powers” (internal quotation marks omitted)). b. Section 10153(a)(5)(C)’s Coordination Requirement Further statutory authority for the Notice Condition is supplied by § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s requirement for certification, in “a form acceptable to the Attorney General,” that “there has been appropriate coordination with affected agencies.” The Third Circuit observed that Congress’s use of the past tense in the quoted text signals that “appropriate coordination” must have occurred by the time a State or locality formally files its Byrne Program application. See City of Philadelphia v. Attorney Gen., 916 F.3d at 285. While we agree with that construction, we do not think that means the required coordination need not continue into the future. See id. Rather, we think appropriate coordination frequently, perhaps invariably, must determine future conduct. The plain meaning of “coordination” is “the functioning of parts in cooperation and normal sequence.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 502. “Coordination” strives to bring a “combination [of parts] in suitable relation for most effective or harmonious results.” Id. The definition does not describe a static concept that ends as soon as the suitable relation of parts and 65 sequence of their operation is determined. Rather, coordination contemplates that relation and sequence are agreed upon in order to establish how parts will operate going forward to achieve effective and harmonious results. The “parts” pertinent to § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s coordination requirement are the grant applicant and the agencies that will be affected by that grant. Thus, the certification required by § 10153(a)(5)(C) demands that, in advance of any Byrne award, States and localities coordinate with affected agencies to determine their relationship and sequence of conduct as necessary throughout the grant period to ensure effective and harmonious results. Put more concretely, if a State were to seek Byrne Program funding for its State police to pursue a law enforcement initiative involving undercover operations across several municipalities, “appropriate coordination” might well require the State to reach an understanding with the affected localities as to how notice will be given to them when those undercover activities are occurring within their borders, thus ensuring that local authorities do not misidentify the State undercover officers as real criminals, with possibly tragic consequences for both sides. In sum, the parties reach an understanding about necessary coordination before the State files its formal Byrne grant application, and the parties’ conduct during the funding period is coordinated as thus agreed upon. Similarly, were a State or locality to seek a Byrne grant to modernize equipment used to track terrorist threats, “appropriate coordination” might require the applicant to consult with other state 66 and federal agencies engaged in similar tracking and to reach agreement as to the type of compatible equipment to be acquired and how obtained information will be shared and secured. Such coordination before formal application then determines the parties’ conduct after receipt of the grant. So, here, when a State seeks Byrne funding for programs that relate to the prosecution, incarceration, or release of persons, some of whom will be removable aliens, there must be coordination with the affected federal agency, the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), before a formal application is filed, but what makes that coordination “appropriate” is that it will establish the parties’ relationship and the sequence of their conduct throughout the grant period. To explain what makes DHS an affected agency, we begin with the ordinary and clear meaning of “affect,” which is to “produce a material influence upon.” WEBSTER’S THIRD NEW INTERNATIONAL DICTIONARY 35; see BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (9th ed. 2009) (defining “affect” to mean “to produce an effect on; to influence in some way”). The degree of influence need not be significant for the law to recognize that something has been “affected” in a range of contexts. See, e.g., Jones v. United States, 529 U.S. 848, 854 (2000) (holding that “statutory term ‘affecting . . . commerce,’ . . . when unqualified, signal[s] Congress’ intent to invoke its full authority under the Commerce Clause”); United States v. Wiant, 314 F.3d 826, 830 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding, in context of “affected a financial institution” that “breadth of [its] definition indicates that” word “affect” “is intended 67 to encompass even minimal impacts”); United States v. SKW Metals & Alloys, Inc., 195 F.3d 83, 90 (2d Cir. 1999) (“The sum of what dictionaries say about the relevant meaning is that the verb ‘to affect’ expresses a broad and open‐ended range of influences.”). When States use Byrne grants in ways related to the prosecution, incarceration, or release of aliens, the DHS Secretary’s performance of numerous statutory responsibilities with respect to such aliens is affected. For example, the Secretary must “begin any removal proceeding” for an alien convicted of a deportable offense “as expeditiously as possible after the date of the conviction,” 8 U.S.C. § 1229(d)(1); must effect the removal of such an alien “within . . . 90 days” after an order of removal becomes final, see id. § 1231(a)(1)(A)– (a)(1)(B)(i)–(ii); and must detain the alien during that 90‐day period, see id. § 1231(a)(2).33 The Secretary, however, “may not remove an alien who is sentenced to imprisonment”—whether by federal or State authorities—ʺuntil the alien is released.” Id. § 1231(a)(4)(A). In that case, the 90‐day removal period starts to run from the date of the alien’s release from custody. See id. § 1231(a)(1)(B)(iii).34 Moreover, in 33 While these statutory sections refer to the Attorney General, the removal responsibilities stated therein and in other statutory provisions referenced in this part of the opinion have been transferred to the Secretary of DHS. See 6 U.S.C. §§ 251(2), 552(d). 34States are under no obligation to incarcerate criminal aliens convicted of state felony crimes, but if they do so, they may then request that the federal government either (1) pay “compensation . . . as may be appropriate” to the State “with respect to the incarceration” of the alien, or (2) “take the undocumented criminal alien into the custody of the Federal Government and incarcerate the alien.” 8 U.S.C. 68 circumstances where a removable alien is released from custody before a final removal order has been obtained, the law authorizes the Secretary to issue a warrant for the alien’s arrest and detention, see id. § 1226(a), and (with limited exceptions) requires the Secretary to do so if the alien has a certain criminal history or has engaged in terrorist activities, see id. § 1226(c)(1), (2).35 As even this brief review makes plain, a removable alien’s State incarceration and release from incarceration will affect DHS’s performance of its own statutory duties throughout the grant period. In these circumstances, “appropriate coordination” requires that, by the time a State or locality files its Byrne grant application, it have reached an agreement with DHS as to their mutual relationship and sequence of conduct throughout the grant period. Any less coordination would not be “appropriate”; indeed, it would be meaningless. § 1231(i). It appears that, in 2017, plaintiff the State of New York received $13.9 million in such compensation pursuant to the SCAAP program referenced supra at 21. See Bureau of Justice Assistance, Fiscal Year 2017 SCAAP Award Details, available at https://bja.ojp.gov/program/state‐criminal‐alien‐assistance‐program‐ scaap/archives (last visited Feb. 24, 2020) (follow “FY 2017” hyperlink below “SCAAP Awards” subheading). 35In 1992, New York attempted to sue federal authorities for failing to comply with a predecessor statute requiring them to take into custody, upon release, aliens convicted of aggravated felonies under state as well as federal law. See Cuomo v. Barr, 812 F. Supp. 324 (N.D.N.Y. 1993), appeal dismissed, 7 F.3d 17 (2d Cir. 1993). 69 The Notice Condition serves to ensure such appropriate coordination. It advises States that, at the time they file a Byrne grant application, they must agree to respond as soon as practicable to a written DHS request for the release date of an identified State‐ incarcerated alien and to have a statute, rule, or policy in force throughout the grant period. We conclude that the Attorney General is authorized to impose such a condition by § 10153(a)(5)(C), which empowers him to determine the acceptable form for certifying appropriate coordination. See supra at 37 (discussing dictionary definition of “form” as something requiring “specific information”).36 It is further supported by § 10155, which authorizes the Attorney General to issue rules for carrying out Byrne Program requirements. Of course, we recognize that plaintiffs would prefer not to coordinate at all with DHS, but that option is denied to them by § 10153(a)(5)(C) when the States seek Byrne grants for programs relating to prosecution, incarceration, or release that will affect DHS’s performance of its own statutory duties. 36 Where, as here, the affected agency is federal, the Attorney General can be expected to have particular insights into what coordination is appropriate to establish the relationship and sequence of conduct necessary for a grant applicant and the affected federal agency both to perform their respective duties in an effective and harmonious manner. But even where the affected agency is not federal, the Attorney General’s form‐ and rule‐authority may allow him to help parties resolve coordination disputes that surface after the application is made public but before it is approved. See 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(3)(B). 70 In sum, we conclude that the Notice Condition is statutorily authorized by § 10153(a)(4)’s reporting requirement, § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s coordination requirement, and § 10155’s rule‐ making authority for Byrne Program applications relating to prosecution, incarceration, and release. That being the purpose for which plaintiffs have generally sought Byrne funding, we vacate the district court’s injunction barring any application of the Notice Condition. 4. The Access Condition Is Statutorily Authorized by 34 U.S.C. §§ 10153(a)(5)(C) and 10155 Title 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(C)’s coordination requirement and § 10155’s rule‐making provision also authorize the challenged Access Condition, and for much the same reason that they authorize the challenged Notice Condition. The Access Condition requires Byrne grant applicants to agree to have in place throughout the grant period a “statute, or a State rule, ‐regulation, ‐policy, or ‐practice” that ensures federal immigration officials “access” to State correctional facilities so that these officials can meet with detained aliens (or suspected aliens) to determine their legal status in this country. See supra at 16 (quoting condition). As explained in discussing the Notice Condition, when States seek Byrne funding for programs related to the prosecution, incarceration, or release of persons, some of whom will inevitably be removable aliens, DHS is an “affected agency” for purposes of 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(C). That is because a State’s incarceration of an alien requires DHS to delay acting on its own statutory obligations to 71 arrest, detain, and remove certain aliens until the State releases the alien. See supra at 67–69. In such circumstances, coordination between the State and DHS is not only appropriate, but necessary, to allow the federal agency effectively to resume its obligations when the State has achieved its penal ones. For DHS to be able to do so, it needs to ascertain not only when a removable alien will be released (the object of the Notice Condition), but also what aliens incarcerated by the State are removable. DHS does not ask the State to provide the latter information. Rather, it asks to be afforded access to State‐incarcerated aliens (or suspected aliens) so that DHS can itself ascertain their potential removability before release. That is what the challenged Access Condition ensures.37 Affording such access constitutes “appropriate coordination” in that it allows both the State seeking a Byrne grant for purposes relating to prosecution, incarceration, or release and an affected agency, DHS, to carry out their respective duties with respect to incarcerated aliens in an orderly sequence. Thus, as with the Notice Condition, we conclude that the Attorney General is statutorily authorized to impose the Access Condition pursuant to § 10153(a)(5)(C), which empowers him to determine the acceptable form for certifying appropriate coordination, and § 10155, which authorizes him to issue rules to carry out the coordination 37What it does not ensure is that incarcerated aliens will then agree to talk with federal immigration authorities. 72 requirement. Accordingly, we vacate the injunction prohibiting any application of the Access Condition. II. The Attorney General’s Imposition of the Challenged Conditions Was Not Arbitrary and Capricious Plaintiffs argue that, even if the Attorney General was statutorily authorized to impose the challenged conditions, the district court correctly concluded that it was arbitrary and capricious for him to do so here without considering the conditions’ negative consequences, particularly in undermining relationships between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 240–41. The conclusion does not withstand de novo review. See Karpova v. Snow, 497 F.3d 262, 267 (2d Cir. 2007) (holding that appeals court reviewing summary judgment award on APA claim examines “administrative record de novo without according deference to the decision of the district court”). While agency action may be overturned as arbitrary and capricious if the agency “entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem” at issue, Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983), a court will not “lightly” reach that conclusion, Islander East Pipeline Co., LLC v. McCarthy, 525 F.3d 141, 151 (2d Cir. 2008) (citing approvingly to Patterson v. Caterpillar, Inc., 70 F.3d 503, 505 (7th Cir. 1995) (stating that court “must be very confident that the decisionmaker overlooked something important”)). Here, DOJ did not overlook something important. As the district court acknowledged, DOJ was aware of the detrimental effects 73 plaintiffs fear from the three challenged conditions. The court also acknowledged that the weight to be given these effects as compared to the conditions’ perceived benefits was at least arguable. See New York v. Dep’t of Justice, 343 F. Supp. 3d at 241. The sole ground on which the district court concluded that DOJ arbitrarily and capriciously “ignored” these detrimental effects in imposing the challenged conditions was its failure to mention such effects in any proffered document. See id. (observing that documents “do not reflect that [DOJ] in any way considered whether jurisdictions’ adherence to the conditions would undermine trust and cooperation between local communities and government”). In fact, there was no need for DOJ to discuss the relative detriments and benefits of the Certification Condition. That condition identifies a specific statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, as an “other applicable Federal law[]” for purposes of the statutory compliance certification requirement of 34 U.S.C. § 10153(a)(5)(D). Thus, the sole question for DOJ to decide was whether 8 U.S.C. § 1373 is an applicable law. Having made that decision—which we uphold, see supra at 35–61— nothing in the statute authorized DOJ to excuse a Byrne applicant from certifying its willingness to comply with an applicable federal law on a finding that the detrimental effects of compliance outweigh the benefits. Indeed, that would be particularly unwarranted here where the legislative history shows that Congress was itself aware of the very detrimental effects raised by plaintiffs when it enacted § 1373. See supra at 19 (quoting Senator Kennedy’s acknowledgment of mayors’ concerns that cooperating with immigration authorities could be counterproductive). Thus, DOJ’s failure to discuss 74 detrimental effects does not show that it arbitrarily or capriciously imposed the Certification Condition. As for the Notice and Access Conditions, these apply only to persons in State custody, i.e., persons found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of charged crimes, or persons for whom there is at least probable cause to think that they committed crimes. Such conditions do not put law‐abiding undocumented aliens who have been crime victims or witnesses at risk of removal and, thus, should not dissuade such aliens from reporting crimes or cooperating in their investigation.38 Thus, it was hardly arbitrary or capricious for DOJ to impose these conditions without discussing detrimental effects that they were unlikely to cause. Nor are we persuaded by plaintiffs’ further argument that the challenged conditions are arbitrary and capricious because DOJ failed 38 See City of Philadelphia v. Attorney Gen., 916 F.3d at 282 (citing Philadelphia’s rationale for policy limiting employee cooperation with federal immigration authorities: to “foster trust between the immigrant community and law enforcement,” which is “critical to reassure law‐abiding residents that contact with the City government will not lead to deportation” by federal authorities (internal quotation marks omitted)); City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d at 279 (observing that “City recognized . . . maintenance of public order and safety required the cooperation of witnesses and victims, whether documented or not”); Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg Signs Executive Order 41 Regarding City Services For Immigrants (Sept. 17, 2003) (remarking in public speech that “[w]hen the parents of an immigrant child forego vaccination for fear of being reported to the federal immigration authorities, we all lose . . . . Likewise, we all suffer when an immigrant is afraid to tell the police that she has been the victim of a sexual assault or domestic violence”), available at https://www1.nyc.gov/office‐ of‐the‐mayor/news/262‐03/mayor‐michael‐bloomberg‐signs‐executive‐order‐41‐ city‐services‐immigrants. 75 to “display awareness that it [was] changing position” and did not show “good reasons for the new policy.” Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 136 S. Ct. 2117, 2126 (2016) (internal quotation marks omitted). DOJ did not change its position; rather, the Attorney General exercised his authority to have Byrne grant applicants satisfy the §§ 10153(a)(4), 10153(a)(5)(C), and 10153(a)(5)(D) requirements in a more specific form. Even if it was necessary to show “good reasons” for this decision, however, that is satisfied here by the 2016 IG Report’s findings of a significant, decade‐long decline in cooperation between local law enforcement officials and federal immigration authorities, some achieved through policies in tension with, if not actually violative of, 8 U.S.C. § 1373.