FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN No. 18-17308 FRANCISCO, Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No. 3:17-cv-04642- v. WHO WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; ALAN R. HANSON, Acting Assistant Attorney General of the United States; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; LAURA L. ROGERS, Defendants-Appellants, and CURRENT AND FORMER PROSECUTORS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT LEADERS; MATT M. DUMMERMUTH, Defendants, v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff, Movant. 2 CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. BARR STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. No. 18-17311 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as Attorney General of the D.C. No. State of California, 3:17-cv-04701- Plaintiff-Appellee, WHO v. OPINION WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General; ALAN R. HANSON; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE; LAURA L. ROGERS; MATT M. DUMMERMUTH; PHIL E. KEITH, Defendants-Appellants, and TARA MICHELLE STEELEY, Real-Party-In-Interest. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California William Horsley Orrick, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 2, 2019 San Francisco, California Filed July 13, 2020 Before: William A. Fletcher, Richard R. Clifton, and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges. Opinion by Judge Clifton CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. BARR 3 SUMMARY * Nationwide Injunction The panel affirmed in part, and vacated in part, the district court’s summary judgment entering declaratory relief for plaintiffs and permanently enjoining the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) on a nationwide basis from imposing certain conditions for providing funding for state and local criminal justice programs through Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants. In Fiscal Year 2017, the Attorney General and DOJ announced three new conditions that state and local governments must satisfy to receive Byrne grants: the Access Condition, the Notice Condition, and the Certification Condition. Plaintiffs – the City and County of San Francisco and the State of California – are “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which have enacted laws that limit their employees’ authority to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Plaintiffs sued to prevent DOJ from denying funding of Byrne grants for their failure to comply with the Access, Notice, and Certification Conditions. The panel affirmed the district court’s order to the extent it held that DOJ did not have statutory authority to impose the Access and Notice Conditions and declared that plaintiffs’ respective sanctuary laws complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, the law on which the Certification Condition was based. The panel upheld the permanent injunction barring * This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader. 4 CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. BARR DOJ from withholding, terminating, or clawing back Byrne funding based on the Challenged Conditions and statutes at issue. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion in granting nationwide injunctive relief, which was broader than warranted. The panel held that nothing in the record or in the nature of the claims suggested that the relief granted by the district court needed to be extended to ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals