Case: County of Santa Clara v. Trump

3:17-cv-00574 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Feb. 3, 2017

Closed Date: Aug. 23, 2019

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

The County of Santa Clara commenced this lawsuit on February 3, 2017 to challenge President Trump's January 25, 2017 Executive Order (EO), Executive Order 13768. The EO denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions that resist enforcing the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies. Represented by private attorneys, the plaintiff filed the complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. According to the comp…

According to the complaint, the EO purported to allow the federal government to deny the plaintiff federal funding without stipulating qualifications for being a "sanctuary jurisdiction." Further, the EO did not grant the right for judicial review or require the federal government to issue notice to such jurisdiction. Thus, the plaintiff alleged that the EO violated constitutional separation of powers, the Fifth Amendment due process right, and the Tenth Amendment.

The case was reassigned on February 8 to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins. However, on Feb. 10, Judge William H. Orrick signed a related case order, connecting this case with a similar one brought by the County and City of San Francisco; both were assigned to him going forward.

On February 23, Santa Clara moved for a nationwide preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from: 1) enforcing Section 9 of the January 25 Executive Order; 2) taking any action in furtherance of any withholding or conditioning of federal funds pursuant to the EO; and 3) taking any action pursuant to the EO to declare any jurisdiction ineligible for federal funds or deprive any jurisdiction of funds already appropriated or allocated by Congress.

On March 22, many entities moved to file amici briefs in support of the plaintiff. These included the State of California; cities and counties in California and nationwide; individual sheriffs and police chiefs nationwide; technology companies in California; social service, labor, and civil rights organizations, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Anti-Defamation League, and local organizations in Santa Clara County; and legal scholars. The superintendent of California's public schools also filed an amicus brief.

On March 23, the defendants moved to combine oral arguments on the preliminary injunction motions in this case and in the related case City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, requesting an April 12 combined hearing. Plaintiff opposed this motion on March 24.

The plaintiff then asked the court for permission to attach four exhibits to its motion for preliminary injunction. These exhibits included recent comments by the White House Press Secretary and recently published detainer reports from ICE, all of which the plaintiff argued contained threats and policies penalizing sanctuary cities. Because of this threat, the plaintiff alleged it had standing and its case was ripe.

Substantively, the plaintiffs argued that the power to condition funds on specified action by local government employees is Congress's, not the President's. An existing statute, 8 U.S.C. §1373, forbids local and state governments from imposing a "gag rule" on their employees that purports to forbid the employees from speaking with federal immigration authorities about the immigration status of any individual. In 2016, the Obama administration had announced that several small immigration-related grant programs would, going forward, be available only to jurisdictions that certified their compliance with §1373; on April 21, 2017, the Trump Administration Attorney General Jeff Sessions confirmed this approach in a letter.

On April 25, 2017 the court entered a nationwide injunction against the EO. The court explained that the federal government had disavowed a robust reading of the EO: It explained for the first time at oral argument that the Order is merely an exercise of the President’s “bully pulpit” to highlight a changed approach to immigration enforcement. Under this interpretation, Section 9(a) applies only to three federal grants in the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security that already have conditions requiring compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1373. This interpretation renders the Order toothless; the Government can already enforce these three grants by the terms of those grants and can enforce 8 U.S.C. §1373 to the extent legally possible under the terms of existing law. Counsel disavowed any right through the Order for the Government to affect any other part of the billions of dollars in federal funds the Counties receive every year.

The court held, however, that the EO "is not reasonably susceptible to the new, narrow interpretation offered at the hearing." Yet a broader reading was, Judge Orrick explained, unconstitutional: "The Constitution vests the spending powers in Congress, not the President, so the Order cannot constitutionally place new conditions on federal funds. Further, the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves." Accordingly, the court granted a preliminary injunction against any broader implementation of the order, although it emphasized that the preliminary injunction "does not affect the ability of the Attorney General or the Secretary to enforce existing conditions of federal grants or 8 U.S.C. §1373, nor does it impact the Secretary’s ability to develop regulations or other guidance defining what a sanctuary jurisdiction is or designating a jurisdiction as such." County of Santa Clara v. Trump, 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2017).

On May 22, 2017 the defendants moved for leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the court's April 25 injunction. According to the defendants, the Attorney General had issued a memorandum on the EO, specifying that the EO's Section 9(a) could only revoke federal grants administered by DOJ or DHS with grant-eligibility terms that expressly conditioned the funding on compliance with 8 U.S.C. §1373. Thus, the defendants argued that in light of this new authority, the court should reconsider the preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs' claims were not justiciable and its success on the merits was unlikely. The next day, Judge Orrick granted leave to file the motion for reconsideration, which the defendants immediately did.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 7. They argued that the plaintiff lacked standing and its claims were unripe or non-justiciable. On June 16, the states of West Virginia, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Michigan, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of defendants' motion to dismiss.

On June 28, many organizations, including labor unions, civil rights groups, public schools, and technology companies, as well as individual sheriffs and police chiefs, moved to file amici briefs on behalf of the plaintiff. Additionally, various California cities and counties as well as various states (California, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, and Washington) moved to file amici briefs on behalf of the plaintiff.

On July 20, Judge Orrick denied the defendants' motion for reconsideration and the motion to dismiss. Finally, he concluded that the plaintiff had adequately stated a claim for declaratory relief. 2017 WL 3086064.

On August 25, Judge Orrick found State of California v. Sessions to be a related case and reassigned it to himself. That case also challenged DOJ's immigration-related conditions on law enforcement funding.

On August 30, Santa Clara and San Francisco moved for summary judgment. Santa Clara argued that EO Section 9(a) was unconstitutional because it violated the separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Consequently, Santa Clara argued, the court should permanently enjoin Section 9(a)'s implementation. The defendants, in their September 27 response, argued that the Constitution authorized their broad immigration enforcement powers as implemented in the EO and §1373. The plaintiffs replied on October 4.

On September 18, the defendants appealed, to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Orrick's April 25 preliminary injunction and July 20 order denying defendants' motions to dismiss and motion for reconsideration.

In the district court, Judge Orrick granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs on November 20, permanently enjoining defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) of the EO against all jurisdictions deemed as "sanctuary jurisdictions." On December 14, the defendants appealed this permanent injunction, asking the Ninth Circuit to consolidate this appeal with the other two appeals in process. The plaintiffs, for their part, asked the Ninth Circuit to dismiss the consolidated appeals as moot because they challenged a preliminary injunction that the permanent injunction had superseded. Eleven states filed amicus briefs supporting the defendants. However, the Ninth Circuit granted the plaintiffs' request on January 4, 2018, denying all pending motions as moot.

On August 1, 2018, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the summary judgment, but vacated and remanded for reconsideration the nationwide injunction. The panel held that the executive branch could not refuse to disperse the federal grants without congressional authorization under the Separation of Powers principle and the Spending Clause. The panel found that Congress had not so authorized, and so summary judgment was proper, but that there were no findings to support an injunction with nationwide reach. 897 F.3d 1225.

On August 23, 2019, Judge Orrick issued a Stipulation and Final Judgment and Order, entering Final Judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, enjoining the defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) in California, and prohibiting defendants from seeking further review of any final decision from this litigation. The plaintiffs withdrew their request for an injunction that would enjoin defendants from enforcing Section 9(a) outside the State of California.

	Document
3:17-cv-00574	Docket [PACER]	Aug. 23, 2019	Aug. 23, 2019 Docket
1 3:17-cv-00574	Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief	Feb. 3, 2017	Feb. 3, 2017 Complaint
33 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeffrey F. Rosen	Feb. 15, 2017	Feb. 15, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
35 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Laurie Smith, Sheriff of Santa Clara County	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
31 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Carl Neusel, Undersheriff of Santa Clara County	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
30 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Robert Menicocci, Director of Santa Clara Social Services Agency	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
34 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Santa Clara County Executive Jeffrey V. Smith	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
32 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Dana Reed, Director of Emergency Management for the County of Santa Clara	Feb. 21, 2017	Feb. 21, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
27 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Sara H. Cody M.D., Director of Santa Clara County Public Health Department	Feb. 22, 2017	Feb. 22, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit
29 3:17-cv-00574	Declaration of Santa Clara County Chief Operating Officer Miguel Marquez	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Declaration/Affidavit

Title	Description		External URL Date / External URL
County of Santa Clara v. Donald J. Trump, et al. Santa Clara County Counsel	On February 3, 2017, the County filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and members of his administration challenging his January 25, 2017 Executive Order through which he intends to d…	Oct. 4, 2017	Oct. 4, 2017 https://web.archive.org/...
Santa Clara County v. Donald J. Trump (Sanctuary Cities) American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California	On March 1, the ACLU of Northern California representing the YWCA Silicon Valley filed a motion to intervene in County of Santa Clara v. Trump, a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s executive order…	March 1, 2017	March 1, 2017 https://www.aclunc.org/...
Federal Defunding Lawsuit County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Counsel	On February 3, 2017, the County filed a federal lawsuit against President Donald Trump and members of his administration challenging his January 25, 2017 Executive Order through which he intends to d…	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 https://web.archive.org/...

ECF Number	Description	Date	Link Date / Link
1	COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0971-11131103.). Filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet)(Keker, John) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017) 1 Exhibit A View on PACER 2 Exhibit B View on PACER 3 Exhibit C View on PACER 4 Civil Cover Sheet View on PACER	Feb. 3, 2017	Feb. 3, 2017 Clearinghouse
2	Proposed Summons. (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017)	Feb. 3, 2017	Feb. 3, 2017 PACER
3	CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by County of Santa Clara.. (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/03/2017)	Feb. 3, 2017	Feb. 3, 2017 PACER
5	Case assigned to Hon. Lucy H. Koh. Counsel for plaintiff or the removing party is responsible for serving the Complaint or Notice of Removal, Summons and the assigned judge's standing orders and all other new case documents upon the opposing parties. For information, visit E-Filing A New Civil Case at http://cand.uscourts.gov/ecf/caseopening.Standing orders can be downloaded from the court's web page at www.cand.uscourts.gov/judges. Upon receipt, the summons will be issued and returned electronically. Counsel is required to send chambers a copy of the initiating documents pursuant to L.R. 5-1(e)(7). A scheduling order will be sent by Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) within two business days. (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/3/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 3, 2017	Feb. 3, 2017 PACER
	Electronic filing error. This filing will not be processed by the clerks office due to incomplete Civil Cover Sheet. Civil Cover Sheet does not indicate selection of "Nature of Suit". Please make selection under Nature of Suit and file Amended Civil Cover Sheet as separate docket entry. Re: 1 Complaint, filed by County of Santa Clara (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
	~Util - Case Assigned by Intake	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
4	Civil Cover Sheet by County of Santa Clara [AMENDED]. (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
6	NOTICE of Appearance by Daniel Edward Purcell (Purcell, Daniel) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
7	NOTICE of Appearance by Cody Shawn Harris (Harris, Cody) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
8	NOTICE of Appearance by Nicholas Samuel Goldberg (Goldberg, Nicholas) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
9	NOTICE of Appearance by Edward Andrew Bayley (Bayley, Edward) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
10	Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: This case is assigned to a judge who participates in the Cameras in the Courtroom Pilot Project. See General Order 65 and http://cand.uscourts.gov/cameras Case Management Statement due by 5/3/2017. Case Management Conference set for 5/10/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 8, 4th Floor, San Jose. (Attachments: # 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording)(dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017) 1 Notice of Eligibility for Video Recording View on PACER	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 Clearinghouse
11	Summons Issued as to Donald J. Trump, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
12	Summons Issued as to John F. Kelly, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
13	Summons Issued as to Dana J Boente, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
14	Summons Issued as to Mark Sandy, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (dhmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/6/2017) (Entered: 02/06/2017)	Feb. 6, 2017	Feb. 6, 2017 PACER
15	ORDER OF RECUSAL. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 2/7/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/7/2017) (Entered: 02/07/2017)	Feb. 7, 2017	Feb. 7, 2017 PACER
16	CLERK'S NOTICE: Case Reassigned to Magistrate Judge Nathanael M. Cousins regarding Discovery Matters re 15 Order of Recusal. Magistrate Judge Susan Van Keulen no longer assigned to case.. (Please note: This is a text-only entry generated by the court. There is no document associated with this entry.) (bwS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/8/2017) (Entered: 02/08/2017)	Feb. 8, 2017	Feb. 8, 2017 PACER
	Clerk's Notice	Feb. 8, 2017	Feb. 8, 2017 PACER
37	RELATED CASE ORDER - Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 02/10/2017. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/10/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 10, 2017	Feb. 10, 2017 RECAP
17	CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by County of Santa Clara (Harris, Cody) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)	Feb. 13, 2017	Feb. 13, 2017 PACER
	Electronic Filing Error	Feb. 13, 2017	Feb. 13, 2017 PACER
	Electronic filing error. Incorrect event used. [err101]. Correct event is: Summons Service Executed. Please re-file in its entirety. Re: 17 Certificate of Service filed by County of Santa Clara (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/13/2017)	Feb. 13, 2017	Feb. 13, 2017 PACER
18	SUMMONS Returned Executed by County of Santa Clara. All Defendants. (Harris, Cody) (Filed on 2/13/2017) (Entered: 02/13/2017)	Feb. 13, 2017	Feb. 13, 2017 PACER
19	NOTICE of Appearance by James Robyzad Williams (Williams, James) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
20	NOTICE of Appearance by Greta Suzanne Hansen (Hansen, Greta) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
21	NOTICE of Appearance by Danielle Luce Goldstein (Goldstein, Danielle) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
22	NOTICE of Appearance by Kavita Kandala Narayan (Narayan, Kavita) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
23	NOTICE of Appearance by Lawrence Javier Serrano (Serrano, Lawrence) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
24	NOTICE of Appearance by Julia Blau Spiegel (Spiegel, Julia) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
25	NOTICE of Appearance by Adriana Lee Benedict (Benedict, Adriana) (Filed on 2/17/2017) (Entered: 02/17/2017)	Feb. 17, 2017	Feb. 17, 2017 PACER
26	MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by County of Santa Clara. Motion Hearing set for 4/5/2017 02:00 PM in Courtroom 2, 17th Floor, San Francisco before Hon. William H. Orrick. Responses due by 3/9/2017. Replies due by 3/16/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order, # 2 Certificate/Proof of Service)(Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017) 1 Proposed Order View on PACER 2 Certificate/Proof of Service View on PACER	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
27	Declaration of Sara H. Cody, M.D. in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
28	Declaration of Paul E. Lorenz in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
29	Declaration of Miguel Marquez in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 3 Exhibit C to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 4 Exhibit D to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 5 Exhibit E to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 6 Exhibit F to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 7 Exhibit G to Declaration of Miguel Marquez, # 8 Exhibit H to Declaration of Miguel Marquez)(Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017) 1 Exhibit A to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 2 Exhibit B to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 3 Exhibit C to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 4 Exhibit D to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 5 Exhibit E to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 6 Exhibit F to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 7 Exhibit G to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER 8 Exhibit H to Declaration of Miguel Marquez View on PACER	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
30	Declaration of Robert Menicocci in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
31	Declaration of Carl Neusel in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
32	Declaration of Dana Reed in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse
33	Declaration of Jeffrey F. Rosen in Support of 26 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed byCounty of Santa Clara. (Related document(s) 26 ) (Keker, John) (Filed on 2/23/2017) (Entered: 02/23/2017)	Feb. 23, 2017	Feb. 23, 2017 Clearinghouse

Case: County of Santa Clara v. Trump

3:17-cv-00574 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Case Summary

Related Cases

People

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Resources

Docket

Case Details