## Facts

- San Francisco and California applied for Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) funds, a federal formula grant supporting criminal-justice programs.
- DOJ conditioned FY 2017 Byrne JAG funds on three immigration-related requirements (facility access, release notice, and certification of compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373); the court had previously held those conditions unlawful.
- For FY 2018, DOJ imposed additional requirements on applicants, including:
  - A nondisclosure condition barring public disclosure of “sensitive federal law-enforcement information” in an attempt to “harbor” noncitizens (referencing 8 U.S.C. § 1324).
  - A compliance-information condition requiring applicants to provide information about local laws and policies to assess compliance with § 1373.
- Plaintiffs alleged DOJ used Byrne JAG funding to pressure state and local jurisdictions to assist federal immigration enforcement without congressional authorization.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, including nationwide relief, and an order compelling DOJ to release Byrne JAG funds without the challenged conditions.

## Issues

1. Whether DOJ had statutory authority under the Byrne JAG statute to impose the FY 2018 nondisclosure and compliance-information conditions, consistent with separation-of-powers limits.
2. Whether the FY 2018 conditions satisfied Spending Clause requirements, including clear notice and relatedness to the federal program.
3. Whether the FY 2018 conditions were unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act as arbitrary and capricious, including due to vagueness and excessive agency discretion.
4. If the conditions were unlawful, whether nationwide injunctive relief and an order directing release of funds were appropriate remedies.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment for San Francisco and California.
- The court held DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose the FY 2018 Byrne JAG conditions, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
- The court held the conditions violated Spending Clause limits, including insufficient relatedness to Byrne JAG’s criminal-justice purposes and inadequate clarity, particularly for the nondisclosure condition.
- The court held the conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA because DOJ failed to provide a reasoned explanation connecting them to the statute and relied on vague standards that left excessive compliance discretion.
- The court entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting enforcement of the FY 2018 conditions and ordered DOJ to release Byrne JAG funds without them.

## Legal Principles

- Federal agencies administering a congressionally created formula grant may not impose new substantive conditions on funds absent clear statutory authorization.
- Executive-branch efforts to attach unauthorized conditions to appropriated funds may violate separation-of-powers principles by effectively creating new law.
- Spending Clause conditions must be stated unambiguously and must relate to the federal interest in the funded program; unclear or unrelated conditions are invalid.
- Under the APA, agency action is unlawful if arbitrary and capricious, including when the agency fails to give a reasoned explanation tied to statutory purposes or uses vague standards that permit inconsistent enforcement.
- Nationwide relief may be warranted where a uniform federal grant program is administered with unlawful conditions and narrower relief would not provide complete redress.

## Conclusion

The district court invalidated DOJ’s FY 2018 Byrne JAG nondisclosure and compliance-information conditions, concluding DOJ lacked statutory authority to impose them, the conditions failed Spending Clause requirements, and they were arbitrary and capricious under the APA; the court enjoined enforcement nationwide and ordered release of funds without the challenged conditions.


City & County of San Francisco v. Sessions, 372 F. Supp. 3d 928 (N.D. Cal. 2019)