Case: City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions

City Attorneys from the City and County of San Francisco (the City) filed this suit on April 5, 2018, challenging the Department of Justice's (DOJ) bulk rescission of documents that provided guidance of the DOJ's interpretation of laws protecting various groups of people. In so doing, the City argued that the DOJ undermined civil rights protections for marginalized communities and undermined regulated entities like the City from being able to effectively comply with federal law. The City argued that the DOJ did not provide a meaningful reason for the rescission, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The City sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu.

The City argued that these documents provided guidance to various regulated entities and "helped to protect civil rights of marginalized individuals," including "immigrants, the poor, people of color, and people with disabilities." The City argued that the reason given for the rescission was a press release that merely stated the documents were "unnecessary, inconsistent with existing law, or otherwise improper." The City argued this reasoning was conclusory and lacked particularized justifications for specific documents. While some parts of the DOJ website explain the withdrawal of particular documents, the City argued that the DOJ did not provide justification for withdrawing six particularly important documents. These six documents included guidance for state and local governments regarding removing unlawful juvenile offender fees, discrimination protection for disabled individuals, and discrimination protection under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The complaint highlighted that this rescission occurred in the context of a DOJ guided under Attorney Jefferson Sessions that "has shown a shocking disregard for protecting the rights of vulnerable communities, rolling back civil rights initiatives in a wide variety of areas."

The case has been assigned to Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu. It was reassigned to Judge Jon S. Tigar on June 14, 2018.

The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss on June 18, 2018, but Judge Tiger determined this motion to be moot on August 1, 2018, when the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. This new complaint maintained the APA causes of action from the first complaint, but added an additional rescission of DOJ documents in July 2018 to the facts of the case and modified the plaintiff's argument for standing.

After the plaintiffs filed the amended complaint, the DOJ filed an additional motion to dismiss on September 27, 2018. Judge Tigar granted the motion to dismiss on December 10, 2018. He wrote that the plaintiffs did not plead a particularized enough injury in order to have standing under the APA, and that municipalities are not subject to reduced pleading requirements like states are in APA claims. He added that regulatory or economic uncertainty was not enough for a municipality to have standing; the injury must be imminent or the municipality must have a plan or process in place to violate the new rule in order for it to have standing.

The plaintiffs did not appeal the ruling, and the case closed.