City of Chicago v. William P. Barr


In the United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit ____________________ Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 CITY OF CHICAGO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, Defendant-Appellant. ____________________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. Nos. 1:17-cv-05720 & 1:18-cv-06859 — Harry D. Leinenweber, Judge. ____________________ NO. 18-2885 ARGUED APRIL 10, 2019, NO. 19-3290 SUBMITTED FEBRUARY 6, 2020 DECIDED APRIL 30, 2020 ____________________ Before BAUER, MANION, AND ROVNER, Circuit Judges. ROVNER, Circuit Judge. In this appeal from two consoli- dated cases, we consider for a second time the legality of 2 Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 conditions imposed by the Attorney General on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“Byrne JAG”). See 34 U.S.C. § 10151 et seq. (formerly 42 U.S.C. § 3750). Previously, the district court granted a preliminary injunction as to two conditions—known as the notice and access condi- tions—imposed by the Attorney General on the FY 2017 Byrne JAG grant applicants. We upheld the preliminary in- junction and its nationwide scope in City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018) (“Chicago I”). The Attorney General then took the rare step of seeking en banc review limited to only the nationwide scope of the injunction, excluding the determination that injunctive relief was proper as to the notice and access conditions, and we granted en banc review. During the pendency of that review, the district court granted a permanent injunction, and in light of that superseding relief we vacated the decision granting en banc review. City of Chicago v. Sessions, No. 17-2991, 2018 WL 4268814, at *2 (7th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018). The district court again determined that the notice and access conditions imposed by the Attorney General were unlawful and unconstitutional, but also determined that a third condition – the compliance condition – was unconstitutional as well. City of Chicago v. Sessions, 321 F. Supp. 3d 855 (N.D. Ill. 2018). The court extended the injunction to apply to all FY 2017 grant recipients program-wide, but in light of our prior grant of en banc review regarding the scope of the injunction, stayed the injunction to the extent that it applied beyond the City of Chicago. The Attorney General appealed that determination, and while it was pending in this court, the district court granted a permanent injunction in a second case brought by the City of Nos. 18-2885 & 19-3290 3 Chicago, this time challenging the Attorney General’s impo- sition of conditions on the FY 2018 Byrne JAG grant. City of Chicago v. Barr, 405 F. Supp. 3d 748 (N.D. Ill. 2019). Those con- ditions included the same notice, access, and compliance con- ditions that the district court enjoined as to the FY 2017 grant, as well as some new conditions. The district court enjoined the imposition of all of the challenged conditions as to the FY 2018 Byrne JAG grant and all future years, and once more stayed the injunction as to grantees ...

Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals