Petitions of the week: Federal funding for protecting cities and one other dispute over the border wall

Posted Thu December 24th 2020 11:30 am by Andrew Hamm

This week we are highlighting certification filings urging the Supreme Court to continue addressing contentious immigration policy issues. One group of cases questions the Trump administration’s attempt to crack down on so-called protected cities. Another case concerns certain construction projects that are part of the border wall between the United States and Mexico. If the judges take up the border wall case, it will be the second case that will be included in the court record of that term that concerns the legality of the border wall construction.

Three petitions ask judges to review disputes between the Justice Department and state or local governments that do not cooperate with federal immigration services. The disputes involve the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program, the largest source of federal funding for state and local law enforcement efforts.

In 2017, the Department of Justice set three conditions for program eligibility, which the Department calls notification, access, and certification. The termination requirement requires state and local governments to issue guidelines to ensure that detainees and other detention facilities provide advance notice of the scheduled date and time for certain non-citizens at the request of the Department of Homeland Security. The eligibility requirement requires guidelines that allow federal agencies access to detention facilities to meet with non-citizens. Finally, the certification requirement requires that grant recipients certify compliance with 8 USC § 1373, which generally prevents state and local governments from sharing “information about citizenship or immigration status … of a person” with federal immigration services to restrict.

In Barr v City and County in San Francisco, Calif., The Department of Justice is seeking review of a decision by the US Circuit Court of Appeals that the department was not empowered to impose notification and access conditions. In addition, the 9th Circle concluded that the Department cannot withhold funds from California and the City and County of San Francisco for non-compliance with the certification requirement as their “protective laws do not violate 8 USC § 1373.” In New York Department of Justice and City of New York v Department of Justice, the US Circuit Court of Appeals reversed and allowed the terms after a district court ruled in favor of the challengers. New York City, New York State and several other states are moving for a review of this decision.

In October, the Supreme Court agreed to a hearing in Trump v Sierra Club, a dispute over funding parts of President Donald Trump’s border wall. In this case, it is the transfer of funds by the administration between the accounts of the Department of Defense under Section 8005 of the Law on Funds of the Department of Defense. In November, the administration filed a separate application for certification, also called Trump vs. Sierra Club, on a slightly different border wall issue. The new petition concerns whether a president’s declaration of a national emergency empowers the Secretary of Defense to “conduct military construction projects … that are not otherwise permitted by law and are required to support such military operations,” under 10 USC Section 2808. In both cases, the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled against the administration.

These and other petitions of the week are listed below:

Birt versus United States
20-291
problem: Whether the term “covered offense” in the First Step Act of 2018 includes violations of 21 USC Section 841 (a) involving crack cocaine, to which the penalties in subsection (b) (1) (C) apply (such as the US Courts of Appeal for the 1st, 4th, and 7th circuits ruled) or not (as the US appeals courts ruled for the 3rd, 6th, 10th, and 11th circuits).

Thompson v. Clark
20-659
Problems: (1) Whether the rule that a plaintiff must wait for a favorable termination before bringing an action under Section 1983 for improper seizure following legal proceedings requires the plaintiff to prove that the criminal proceedings instituted against him “have been terminated in a way which is not incompatible with his innocence “How the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit in Laskar ruled against Hurd or that the trial” ended in a way that affirms his innocence “, as the US Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in Lanning v. City of Glens Falls; and (2) whether the government has the burden of proof of the existence of urgent circumstances if a 1983 Section plaintiff files a non-warranted Fourth Amendment claim into his home and the government a justification for urgent circumstances (how the US appeals courts for the 3rd, 6th, 9th and 10th circuits took place) or whether the plaintiff his Nic Proof of existence (as the US appeals courts did for the 2nd, 7th and 8th circuits).

Barr v. City and County of San Francisco, California
20-666
Problems: (1) Whether the Department of Justice has the legal authority to impose termination and entry conditions on fellows accepting the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Awards, a program that provides law enforcement agencies with millions in financial assistance; and (2) whether the Byrne Division may withhold JAG funds from the city and county of San Francisco, California for non-compliance with 8 USC 1373, which generally prevents state and local governments from sharing information about citizenship or citizenship Restrict the immigration status of … any person ”with federal immigration services.

Trump versus Sierra Club
20-685
Problems: (1) Does the Sierra Club have any identifiable reason to take action to obtain a Defense Secretary review of 10 USC § 2808 in the re-prioritization of suitable but uncommitted funds for military construction projects with approved boundary barriers? and (2) whether the Secretary has exceeded his legal authority under Section 2808 to re-prioritize earmarked funds for military construction projects after the President declares a national emergency requiring the deployment of armed forces on the southern border.

New York versus Department of Justice
20-795
problem: Whether Congress has authorized the Department of Justice to condition funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which provides funding for state and local criminal justice priorities to accept the DOJ’s new requirements, the state and local authorities grant recipients (1) respond to ad hoc requests from federal officials for the release dates of non-nationals in grant-holder custody, (2) grant federal agents access to grant-holder prisons and police stations to interrogate suspicious non-nationals, and (3 ) certify compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which is intended to state that state and local governments cannot regulate when their employees can provide information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status to federal officials.

City of New York versus Department of Justice
20-796
problem: Whether Congress has authorized the Department of Justice to condition funding for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which provides funding for state and local criminal justice priorities to accept the DOJ’s new requirements, the state and local authorities grant recipients (1) respond to ad hoc requests from federal officials for the release dates of non-nationals in grant-holder custody, (2) grant federal agents access to grant-holder prisons and police stations to interrogate suspicious non-nationals, and (3 ) certify compliance with 8 USC Section 1373, which is intended to state that state and local governments cannot regulate when their employees can provide information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status to federal officials.

Posted in Birt v USA, Thompson v Clark, Barr v City and County of San Francisco, California, Trump v Sierra Club, New York v Justice Department, New York City v Justice Department, Featured, Cases in the pipeline

Recommended citation:
Andrew Hamm, Petitions of the Week: Federal Funding for Protected Cities and Another Dispute over the Border Wall,
SCOTUSblog (December 24, 2020, 11:30 a.m.), https://www.scotusblog.com/2020/12/petitions-of-the-week-federal-funding-for-sanctuary-cities-and-another-dispute – over-the-border-wall /

Comments are closed.