City of Los Angeles v. Jefferson B. Sessions III et al, No. 2:2018cv07347 - Document 107 (C.D. Cal. 2020)
Court Description: FINAL JUDGMENT by Judge Josephine L. Staton, the Court hereby ENTERS final judgment in favor of Plaintiff City of Los Angeles. FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunctions previously entered by the Court (ECF Nos. 62 and 105 ) are incorporated into this final judgment. (See document for further information). (jp)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
City of Los Angeles v. Jefferson B. Sessions III et al Doc. 107 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:18-cv-07347-JLS-JC FINAL JUDGMENT 13 14 15 16 17 v. WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General of the United States, et al., Defendants. 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 FINAL JUDGMENT 2 3 I. BACKGROUND On February 15, 2019, this Court granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiff 4 City of Los Angeles (the “City”) as to Count One in its First Amended Complaint for 5 Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (the “Complaint”), holding that the Defendants’ 6 imposition of the immigration-related Conditions1 on the Fiscal Year (“FY”) 2018 7 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistant Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program were “ultra 8 vires as a matter of law and a violation of separation of powers.” ECF No. 62 at 5-8. 9 Because summary judgment was granted as to Count One (Plaintiff’s ultra vires claim), 10 this Court did not reach the City’s alternative grounds for partial summary judgment on 11 the FY 2018 Byrne JAG conditions (Counts Two, Three, and Four), and these were 12 rendered moot. Id. at 8.2 Determining that the requisites for entry of a permanent 13 injunction were met, this Court issued a permanent injunction that enjoined Defendants 14 “from imposing the Conditions on FY 2018 Byrne JAG awards and [Gang Suppression 15 Planning Grants Program (“Gang Suppression Grant Program”)].” Id. at 9-10. 16 On July 1, 2019, this Court vacated part of its February 15, 2019 order and 17 injunction (ECF No. 62), “solely to the extent” that it related to the FY 2018 Gang 18 Suppression Grant Program, without affecting any part of “the Court’s injunction that 19 concerns the Byrne JAG Program.” ECF No. 79. 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 These are the Notice Condition, the Access Condition, the 1373 and 1644 Condition, the Harboring Condition, the Questionnaire Condition, and the 1366 Condition, as set forth at ECF No. 62 at 5-8. 2 Counts Two, Three, and Four alleged, respectively, that imposition of the challenged Conditions on the FY 2018 Byrne JAG program violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, violated the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See ECF No. 40 at 38-41. 28 1 1 The City then moved for partial summary judgment on Counts Five through Eight 2 and for a permanent injunction barring Defendants from imposing the challenged 3 immigration-related Conditions on the Gang Suppression Grant Program.3 On June 17, 4 2020, following full briefing, this Court granted the City’s motion for partial summary 5 judgment, holding that that “Congress did not grant [the Department of Justice (“DOJ”)] 6 the power to impose the challenged Conditions” on the Gang Suppression Grant Program 7 and “their imposition, therefore, is ultra vires.” ECF No. 105 at 13. Having granted 8 relief on the basis of the ultra vires claim (Count Five), ECF No. 40 at 42-46, the Court 9 did not reach the City’s alternative grounds (Counts Six through Eight) for partial 10 summary judgment regarding the Gang Suppression Grant Program. ECF No. 105 at 13- 11 14.4 Concluding that the City “carried its burden” to obtain a permanent injunction 12 limited to the City, id. at 15, this Court permanently restrained and enjoined the 13 “Defendants and their officers, agents, servants and employees . . . from conditioning, 14 withholding, or delaying Gang Suppression Planning Grants Program awards with 15 respect to City based on the six immigration-related conditions imposed on applicants of 16 the Fiscal Year 2018 Gang Suppression Program.” Id. at 16. 17 18 II. FINAL JUDGMENT For the reasons stated above and in prior orders, and pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 58, the Court hereby ENTERS final judgment in favor of Plaintiff City 20 of Los Angeles. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the permanent injunctions 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 These were the Access Condition, the Notice Condition, the 1373 and 1644 Condition, the Harboring Condition, the Questionnaire Condition, and the 1366 Condition, as set forth in ECF No. 105 at 4-6. 4 Counts Six, Seven, and Eight alleged, respectively, that imposition of the challenged Conditions on the Gang Suppression Grant Program violated the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution, violated the anti-commandeering principles of the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and constituted arbitrary and capricious agency action under the APA. See ECF No. 40 at 46-49. 2 1 previously entered by the Court (ECF Nos. 62 and 105) are incorporated into this final 2 judgment. 3 4 III. PRESERVATION OF RIGHTS The City preserves its rights to seek reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees, for 5 this matter and any future related proceeding. Defendants preserve their rights to object 6 to or to oppose any attempt by the City to recover costs or attorney’s fees. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 09, 2020 ______________________________ 10 HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
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.
