Opinion ID: 4368537
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: N.S. v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289, 315 (2001).

Text: 11 to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Natu- ralization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlaw- ful, of any individual. 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a). C. Factual and Procedural History
Philadelphia filed its FY2017 Byrne JAG application on September 5, 2017. 4 The Department issued a “preliminary determination” of the application on October 11, stating that the City “appears to have laws, policies, or practices that violate 8 U.S.C. § 1373.” No doubt, this referred to policies adopted by police or executive order that limit the circumstances under which City officials will share immigration information with the federal government, permit federal officials to access City prison facilities, and coordinate with federal officials regarding the release of aliens from local custody. 5 The 4 Philadelphia intended to use FY2017 funds to support the Police Commissioner’s “Crime Fighting Strategy,” support the City’s “Reality Based Training Unit,” purchase supplies for inner-city youth initiatives, and purchase naxalone for officers responding to opioid overdoses. See S.A. 23. 5 Specifically, the policies at issue are: The Confidentiality Memo. Police Memorandum 01-06, adopted in May 2001, directs law enforcement officers to share immigration information with the federal government under limited circumstances: when required by law, when the immigrant consents, or when the “immigrant is suspected of engaging in criminal activity.” App. 250-51. 12 City believes that these policies help foster trust between the immigrant community and law enforcement. It argues that such policies are “critical to reassure law-abiding residents that contact with the City government will not lead to deportation by ICE.” Philadelphia Br. 7.
This case has unfolded in four main acts: Philadelphia filed a complaint seeking to enjoin the Department from implementing the Challenged Conditions; the District Court granted a preliminary injunction; the District Court granted summary judgement and a permanent injunction for the City; and, fi- nally, the Attorney General filed this appeal. On August 30, 2017, Philadelphia filed the complaint in this action against the Department of Justice in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The City sought The Confidentiality Order. Executive Order 8-09, enacted in November 2009, bars law enforcement officers from inquiring about a person’s immigration status, “unless the status itself is a necessary predicate of a crime the officer is investigating or unless the status is relevant to identification of a person who is suspected of committing a crime.” App. 254. The Detainer Order. Executive Order 5-16, enacted in January 2016, bars City officials from detaining an immigrant pursuant to an ICE detainer or from providing notice of the immigrant’s release, unless the request is accompanied by a judicial warrant. App. 258-59. The Inmate Consent Form. These consent forms are distributed to incarcerated individuals whom ICE requests to interrogate. The forms require the inmate’s consent before ICE is permitted access to the facility to conduct an interview. App. 263. 13 to enjoin the Department from implementing the Challenged Conditions and a writ of mandamus compelling the Department to disburse its FY2017 Byrne JAG funds. The City argued that this relief was warranted for five reasons: the Department acted ultra vires in enacting the Challenged Conditions in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and the Constitution’s separation of powers; the Conditions were enacted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the APA; they violated the Spending Clause of the Constitution; the Certification Condition and Section 1373 violate the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution; and the City was, in fact, in substantial compliance with the Challenged Conditions. App. 411-63. The District Court held extensive hearings and issued a preliminary injunction on November 15, 2017. In a thoughtful and well-reasoned opinion, the Court found that the City was likely to succeed on all of its claims, and enjoined the Department from denying its FY2017 application. See City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017) (Philadelphia I). The Department appealed the preliminary injunction to this Court on January 16, 2018. After filing its appeal, the case continued in the District Court, where the Department also filed a motion to dismiss the City’s complaint. The District Court denied this motion on March 13, 2018. See City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 271 (E.D. Pa. 2018). In two orders, the Court granted summary judgment for the City on all of its claims. See App. 93; City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018) (Philadelphia II). It permanently enjoined the Department from enforcing the Challenged Conditions, ordered the Department to disburse the City’s FY2017 funds, and issued declaratory relief on all of 14 the City’s legal claims. Furthermore, the Court issued additional relief, namely, ordering that “[t]o the extent an agency of the United States Government has probable cause to assert that an individual in the custody of the City of Philadelphia is a criminal alien … and seeks transfer to federal custody of such individual within a city facility, it shall secure an order from a judicial officer of the United States for further detention, as allowed by law.” App. 191. After the District Court issued this order, we dismissed the Attorney General’s appeal of the preliminary injunction. The Attorney General filed this timely appeal of the Court’s grant of summary judgment and permanent injunction. D. Related Litigation Philadelphia is not alone in being advised that its Byrne JAG award depends upon compliance with the Challenged Conditions. Indeed, several other jurisdictions have sued to enjoin enforcement of the Challenged Conditions, including the City of Chicago, the City and County of San Francisco, and the City of New York (which was joined by seven states—New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, Massachusetts, and Virginia). In all of these cases, the courts that have ruled have enjoined enforcement of the Challenged Conditions. See City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017) (Chicago I) (issuing a preliminary injunction as to the Notice and Access Conditions); City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) (Chicago II) (affirming the district court’s preliminary injunction); City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (Chicago III) (issuing a permanent injunction); City & County of San Francisco v. Sessions, 2018 WL 4859528 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 5, 2018) (San Francisco) (issuing a permanent injunction after declining to issue a preliminary injunction); States of New York, et 15 al. v. Dep’t of Justice, 2018 WL 6257693 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 30, 2018) (New York, et al.) (issuing a permanent injunction).