CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO V. MERRICK GARLAND, No. 19-15947 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
The Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program is a federal formula grant that supports state and local criminal justice efforts. Effective Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) imposed new immigration enforcement-related conditions (“Conditions”) on Byrne JAG funds. In order to draw upon their Byrne JAG funds, grant recipients had to certify that their laws complied with independent provisions of the Federal Code, specifically 8 U.S.C. Section 1373, a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act enacted in 1996, and 8 U.S.C. Section 1644, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.
The district court for the Northern District of California and the district court for the District of Oregon determined that the Conditions exceeded the DOJ’s statutory authority and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The district courts also held that Sections 1373 and 1644 violated the Tenth Amendment, and permanently enjoined their enforcement.
In consolidated appeals, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and vacated in part district court judgments. Addressing the facial constitutional challenges under the Tenth Amendment to Sections 1373 and 1644, the court held that these challenges were not justiciable in their present posture. The court explained that because Plaintiffs’ laws complied with the federal provisions, their facial challenges were no longer ripe. Having concluded that Plaintiffs’ facial challenges were either not ripe, or were mooted, the court narrowly vacated the district courts’ determinations that Sections 1373 and1644 were facially unconstitutional.
Court Description: Civil Rights. In consolidated appeals, the panel affirmed in part and vacated in part district court judgments in actions challenging immigration enforcement-related conditions imposed by the Department of Justice on grants made pursuant to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program for Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018. The Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“JAG”) program is a federal formula grant that supports state and local criminal justice efforts. Effective Fiscal Years 2017 and 2018, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) imposed new immigration enforcement-related conditions (“Conditions”) on Byrne JAG funds. In order to draw upon their Byrne JAG funds, grant recipients, among other things, had to certify that their laws complied with independent provisions of the Federal Code, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373, a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act enacted in 1996, and 8 U.S.C. § 1644, of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act. 4 CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO V. GARLAND The district court for the Northern District of California and the district court for the District of Oregon determined that the Conditions exceeded the DOJ’s statutory authority and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The district courts also held that Sections 1373 and 1644 violated the Tenth Amendment, and permanently enjoined their enforcement. The United States did not appeal the injunctions to the extent that they were based on the holding that the Conditions exceeded DOJ’s statutory power, as conferred by Congress. The panel, consistent with this Circuit’s prior precedent and the government decision not to appeal the district courts’ judgments on this issue, affirmed the judgments of the district courts enjoining DOJ from withholding Byrne JAG program grant funds based on the Conditions. Addressing next the facial constitutional challenges under the Tenth Amendment to Sections 1373 and 1644, the panel held that these challenges were not justiciable in their present posture. This Circuit’s precedential interpretation of Section 1373 dispelled any purported conflict between the federal provisions and plaintiffs’ laws and resolved the controversy that once animated plaintiffs’ facial challenge. See United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019), cert denied, 590 141 S. Ct. 124 (2020). Because plaintiffs’ laws complied with the federal provisions, their facial challenges were no longer ripe. Having concluded that plaintiffs’ facial challenges were either not ripe, or were mooted, the panel narrowly vacated the district courts’ determinations that Sections 1373 and1644 were facially unconstitutional without deciding the merits of those claims. The panel remanded with directions to dismiss the facial challenges to 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644. CITY & CTY. OF SAN FRANCISCO V. GARLAND 5 Concurring in part, Judge Bea agreed fully with the majority’s decision to hold non-justiciable the question of whether §§ 1373 and 1644 are facially unconstitutional under the Tenth Amendment. Judge Bea respectfully dissented from Part II of the opinion, in which the majority affirmed the district courts’ rulings that the DOJ lacked the statutory authority to impose the challenged grant conditions. Judge Bea saw no reason to affirm those rulings because the DOJ waived any appeal of them.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.