No. 20-666

Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General, et al. v. City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2020-11-13
Status: Dismissed
Type: Paid
Relisted (3) Experienced Counsel
Tags: byrne-jag-program civil-rights department-of-justice federal-funding federal-grants grant-conditions immigration immigration-compliance information-sharing state-and-local-government statutory-authority statutory-interpretation
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw SocialSecurity Immigration Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2021-03-05 (distributed 3 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Department has statutory authority to impose the notice and access conditions on grantees that accept Byrne JAG awards

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Department of Justice administers the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which provides millions of dollars in financial assistance to law enforcement in the form of grant awards to States and local governments nationwide. For Fiscal Year 2017, the Department announced two new special conditions designed to ensure that, in their programs receiving such federal assistance, grantees provide a basic level of cooperation with federal authorities with respect to aliens held in state or local criminal custody. The “notice condition” requires grantees to have a policy designed to ensure that facilities provide, upon a request by the Department of Homeland Security, advance notice of the scheduled release date and time for a particular alien. The “access condition” requires grantees to have a policy to afford federal authorities access to the grantee’s facilities to meet with an alien. In addition, the Department of Justice imposed the “certification condition,” requiring grantees to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1873—which generally bars state and local governments from restricting the sharing of “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status * * * of any individual” with federal immigration authorities, ibid.—and to certify such compliance. The questions presented are as follows: 1. Whether the Department has statutory authority to impose the notice and access conditions on grantees that accept Byrne JAG awards. 2. Whether the Department may withhold Byrne JAG funds from respondents for noncompliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. (D)

Docket Entries

2021-03-04
Joint stipulation to dismiss the case pursuant Rule 46.1 filed.
2021-03-04
Petition Dismissed - Rule 46.
2021-03-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 3/5/2021.
2021-02-22
Rescheduled.
2021-02-10
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/26/2021.
2021-02-03
Rescheduled.
2021-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/19/2021.
2021-01-27
Letter from Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General, et al., received.
2021-01-13
Brief of respondents State of California ex rel. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General in opposition filed.
2021-01-13
Brief of respondents City and County of San Francisco, California, et al. in opposition filed.
2020-11-20
The motions to extend the time to file responses to the peition for a writ of certiorari are granted and the time is extended to and including January 13, 2021, for all respondents.
2020-11-19
Motion of City and County of San Francisco to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2020 to January 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-19
Motion of State of California to extend the time to file a response from December 14, 2020 to January 13, 2021, submitted to The Clerk.
2020-11-13
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 14, 2020)

Attorneys

City and County of San Francisco, California, et al.
Sara Jennifer EisenbergSan Francisco City Attorney's Office, Respondent
Robert M. Wilkinson, Acting Attorney General , et al.
Brian H. FletcherActing Solicitor General, Petitioner
State of California ex rel. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General
Samuel Passchier SiegelCalifornia Department of Justice, Respondent