Case: City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions III

3:18-cv-05146 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: Aug. 22, 2018

Closed Date: Sept. 20, 2022

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case involved an attempt by the Trump Administration to condition federal funding on state and local government’s participation in federal immigration enforcement. On August 22, 2018, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. San Francisco, represented by the city attorney, sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, the United States Department Justice (DOJ), a…

This case involved an attempt by the Trump Administration to condition federal funding on state and local government’s participation in federal immigration enforcement. On August 22, 2018, the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. San Francisco, represented by the city attorney, sued Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Acting Assistant Attorney General, the United States Department Justice (DOJ), and dozens of unnamed defendants who were also allegedly responsible for unconstitutionally conditioning grants of federal funding. 

San Francisco alleged that, under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644, the defendants conditioned the receipt of grants made pursuant to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (“Byrne JAG program”)--a federal funding program that supports state and local criminal justice efforts–-on immigration-related conditions. These conditions included allowing Department of Homeland Security officials to question suspected citizens in grant recipients’ custody, requiring recipients to provide advance notice of those persons’ release, prohibiting recipients’ disclosure of federal law enforcement information for certain purposes, and requiring recipients to certify that their laws complied with independent provisions relating to immigration of the Federal Code. Failure to cooperate with these conditions would deny San Francisco up to $1.4 million in Byrne JAG funds for FY2018. The DOJ justified these conditions on the ground that “information,” as used in §§ 1373 and 1364, encompassed any information that could assist federal immigration authorities in detaining or removing noncitizens.

Seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, San Francisco claimed that these conditions conflicted with existing state and county laws, and accordingly, these conditions violated the Spending Clause, separation of powers, and the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The case was assigned to Judge William Orrick. It was related to a similar case brought by the State of California on Sept. 10, 2018. Details on that case can be found here. This case is also related to two cases San Francisco had previously sued the DOJ over similar immigration conditions imposed on the Byrne JAG program twice in 2017. Details of those cases can be found here and here.

On December 21, 2018, San Francisco moved for summary judgment. On March 4, 2019, Judge Orrick granted San Francisco's motion for summary judgment and denied the defendants' motion for partial dismissal or partial summary judgment. Judge Orrick found that the challenged conditions were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers, that 8 U.S.C. § 1373 was unconstitutional, and that the Attorney General exceeded the Spending Clause by imposing ambiguous conditions on Byrne JAG grants in FY2018. Furthermore, Judge Orrick concluded that the conditions were arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, that California was entitled to the mandamus relief it was seeking in its related case, and that a nationwide injunction was warranted but stayed.

Judge Orrick focused his analysis on the two new conditions imposed for FY2018, incorporating by reference the arguments related to the duplicate conditions from FY2017. The DOJ relied on three statutory provisions to support its conclusion that Congress had delegated authority to the Assistant Attorney General to exercise discretion over formula grants, but Judge Orrick concluded that these provisions did not grant such an independent authority to impose the FY2018 conditions on Byrne JAG grants.

On March 26, 2019, Judge Orrick issued a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from using the FY2018 Byrne JAG funding conditions for any California state entity, San Francisco, any California political subdivision, or any jurisdiction in the United States. The judge then stayed the nationwide aspect of the permanent injunction until further rulings from the Ninth Circuit, which had expressed concerns over the nationwide nature of the relief during the 2017 litigation over Byrne JAG funding conditions.

On May 3, 2019, the defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Docket No. 19-15947). On appeal, this case was consolidated with one involving similar claims brought by the State of Oregon against President Biden and the DOJ. On July 29, 2022, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming in part, vacating in part, and remanding in part the district court’s judgments. 42 F.4th 1078 (9th Cir. 2022). The court affirmed the district court’s declaratory judgment and injunction barring the DOJ from withholding Byrne JAG program funds on the grounds that the funding conditions exceeded the DOJ’s statutory authority as conferred by Congress. This judgment was affirmed because the DOJ did not challenge it. 

The court remanded with instructions to dismiss the district court’s judgment that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 were unconstitutional without deciding the issue on the merits, because the Court concluded that plaintiffs’ challenges were mooted by intervening precedent in United States v. California, 921 F.3d 865 (9th Cir. 2019). In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that these statutes only cover information about what one’s immigration status is, and thus there was no  conflict between the federal law and San Francisco’s law. Because the district court relied on the judgment that §1373 was unconstitutional in its injunction, the Court of Appeals vacated the district court’s permanent injunction to the extent that it enjoined § 1373’s enforcement nationwide, and beyond the Byrne JAG context. This case appears to be closed. 

 

Summary Authors

Cianan Lesley (1/31/2019)

Sam Kulhanek (4/8/2019)

Alec Richards (9/29/2019)

Aaron Gurley (2/15/2020)

Rita Elfarissi (1/26/2024)

Jacob Chang (4/14/2026)

Related Cases

City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, Northern District of California (2017)

City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions, Northern District of California (2017)

State of California v. Sessions, Northern District of California (2018)

Oregon v. Trump, District of Oregon (2018)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7722500/parties/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-sessions/


Documents in the Clearinghouse

Documents in this case

3:18-cv-05146

Docket [PACER]

March 26, 2019

March 26, 2019

Docket
1

3:18-cv-05146

Complaint

City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions, III

Aug. 22, 2018

Aug. 22, 2018

Complaint
22

3:18-cv-05146

Amended Complaint

Nov. 1, 2018

Nov. 1, 2018

Complaint
60

3:18-cv-05146

Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Denying Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

March 4, 2019

March 4, 2019

Order/Opinion
63

3:18-cv-05146

Judgment and Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment

March 26, 2019

March 26, 2019

Order/Opinion
65

3:18-cv-05146

Defendants' Notice of Appeal

May 3, 2019

May 3, 2019

Pleading / Motion / Brief
70

3:18-cv-05146

Opinion

City and County of San Francisco v. Garland et al.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 29, 2022

July 29, 2022

Order/Opinion

42 F.4th 1078

70

19-15947

19-15950

19-35843

Opinion

City and County of San Francisco v. Garland

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

July 29, 2022

July 29, 2022

Order/Opinion

42 F.4th 1078

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/7722500/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-sessions/

Last updated April 14, 2026, 4:03 p.m.

Docket for: City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions
ECF Number Date Description Link
1 Aug. 22, 2018

COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00, receipt number 0971-12617782.). Filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Civil Cover Sheet) (Herrera, Dennis) (Filed on 8/22/2018) Modified on 8/22/2018 (gbaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 08/22/2018)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
2 Aug. 22, 2018

Proposed Summons. (Herrera, Dennis) (Filed on 8/22/2018) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

RECAP
3 Aug. 22, 2018

Case assigned to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. 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. Consent/Declination due by 9/5/2018. (as, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

RECAP
4 Aug. 22, 2018

Initial Case Management Scheduling Order with ADR Deadlines: Case Management Statement due by 11/23/2018. Initial Case Management Conference set for 11/30/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom G, 15th Floor. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

RECAP
5 Aug. 22, 2018

Summons Issued as to Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, United States Department of Justice. (gbaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/22/2018) (Entered: 08/22/2018)

RECAP
6 Aug. 23, 2018

NOTICE of Appearance by Ronald P. Flynn Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Flynn, Ronald) (Filed on 8/23/2018) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

RECAP
7 Aug. 23, 2018

NOTICE of Appearance by Yvonne Rosil Mere Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Mere, Yvonne) (Filed on 8/23/2018) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

RECAP
8 Aug. 23, 2018

NOTICE of Appearance by Sara Jennifer Eisenberg Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 8/23/2018) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

RECAP
9 Aug. 23, 2018

NOTICE of Appearance by Tara M. Steeley Notice of Appearance of Counsel (Steeley, Tara) (Filed on 8/23/2018) (Entered: 08/23/2018)

RECAP
10 Aug. 24, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of San Francisco Proof of Service (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 8/24/2018) (Entered: 08/24/2018)

RECAP
11 Sept. 5, 2018

CONSENT/DECLINATION to Proceed Before a US Magistrate Judge by City and County of San Francisco.. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 9/5/2018) (Entered: 09/05/2018)

RECAP
12 Sept. 10, 2018

ORDER RELATING CASE - This matter is found to be related to 3:17cv485-WHO. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/10/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/10/2018) (Entered: 09/10/2018)

RECAP
13 Sept. 11, 2018

Case reassigned to Judge William H. Orrick. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero no longer assigned to the case. 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 (srnS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2018) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

RECAP
14 Sept. 11, 2018

CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE ORDER - Case Management Conference set for 11/27/2018 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor. Case Management Statement due by 11/20/2018. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 09/11/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/11/2018) (Entered: 09/11/2018)

RECAP
15 Sept. 13, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of San Francisco Proof of Service (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 9/13/2018) (Entered: 09/13/2018)

RECAP
16 Sept. 27, 2018

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by City and County of San Francisco Updated Proof of Service (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 9/27/2018) (Entered: 09/27/2018)

RECAP
17 Oct. 12, 2018

MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 1 Complaint, filed by Jefferson B. Sessions, III, United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of W. Scott Simpson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Filed on 10/12/2018) (Entered: 10/12/2018)

1 Declaration of W. Scott Simpson

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

RECAP
18 Oct. 16, 2018

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER Stipulation and [Proposed] Order on Amendment of Complaints and Defendants' Responses to Amended Complaints filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 10/16/2018) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

RECAP
19 Oct. 16, 2018

ORDER by Judge William H. Orrick granting (18) Stipulation in case 3:18-cv-05146-WHO and (15) Stipulation in case 3:18-cv-05169-WHO. Plaintiffs shall have until November 1, 2018 to file an amended complaint in this action. Defendants' responses to the complaints shall be due on December 3, 2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/16/2018) (Entered: 10/16/2018)

RECAP
20 Nov. 1, 2018

Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Automatic Referral to the ADR Multi-Option Program Joint Administrative Motion for Relief from Automatic Referral to the ADR Multi-Option Program filed by City and County of San Francisco. Responses due by 11/5/2018. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

RECAP
21 Nov. 1, 2018

Proposed Order re 20 Joint ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION Automatic Referral to the ADR Multi-Option Program Joint Administrative Motion for Relief from Automatic Referral to the ADR Multi-Option Program [Proposed] Order on Joint Administrative Motion for Relief from Automatic Referral to the ADR Multi-Option Program by City and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

RECAP
22 Nov. 1, 2018

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELEIF; against City and County of San Francisco. Filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1, # 2 Exhibit 2, # 3 Exhibit 3, # 4 Exhibit 4)(Herrera, Dennis) (Filed on 11/1/2018) Modified on 11/2/2018 (aaaS, COURT STAFF). (Entered: 11/01/2018)

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

Clearinghouse
23 Nov. 1, 2018

ORDER ON JOINT ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM AUTOMATIC REFERRAL TO THE ADR MULTI-OPTION PROGRAM by Judge William H. Orrick granting (20) Administrative Motion in case 3:18-cv-05146-WHO. Associated Cases: 3:18-cv-05146-WHO, 3:18-cv-05169-WHO (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/1/2018) (Entered: 11/01/2018)

RECAP
24 Nov. 20, 2018

CASE MANAGEMENT STATEMENT Joint Case Management Statement filed by City and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 11/20/2018) (Entered: 11/20/2018)

RECAP
25 Nov. 27, 2018

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Orrick: Case Management Conference held on 11/27/2018. Briefing schedule set and Motion Hearing on anticipated motion to enforce judgment scheduled for 12/21/2018 10:00 AM. Briefing schedule set and Motion Hearing on competing dispositive motions scheduled for 2/13/2019 02:00 PM. (Both hearings to be conducted in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick.) FTR Time: 2:09-2:32. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 11/27/2018) (Entered: 11/27/2018)

RECAP
26 Dec. 3, 2018

NOTICE by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Matthew G. Whitaker of Filing of Administrative Record (Attachments: # 1 Admin. Record Part 1, # 2 Admin. Record Part 2, # 3 Admin. Record Part 3, # 4 Admin. Record Part 4)(Simpson, W.) (Filed on 12/3/2018) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

1 Admin. Record Part 1

View on PACER

2 Admin. Record Part 2

View on PACER

3 Admin. Record Part 3

View on PACER

4 Admin. Record Part 4

View on PACER

RECAP
27 Dec. 3, 2018

MOTION to Dismiss (Partial), MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) filed by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Matthew G. Whitaker. Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Responses due by 12/21/2018. Replies due by 1/14/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, # 2 Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Filed on 12/3/2018) (Entered: 12/03/2018)

1 Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice

View on RECAP

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

RECAP
28 Dec. 4, 2018

Clerk's Notice of Video Recording Request. Video Camera hearings set for 12/21/2018 10:00 AM and 2/13/2019 02:00 PM. Objections to Video Recording due 12/11/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/4/2018) (Entered: 12/04/2018)

RECAP
29 Dec. 19, 2018

Clerk's Notice CONSENTING TO Video Recording of hearing re: 155 Motion to Enforce in Case No. 17-cv-4701-WHO. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/19/2018) (Entered: 12/19/2018)

RECAP
30 Dec. 21, 2018

MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed by City and County of San Francisco. Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2019 02:00 PM in San Francisco, Courtroom 02, 17th Floor before Judge William H. Orrick. Responses due by 1/4/2019. Replies due by 1/11/2019. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
31 Dec. 21, 2018

Request for Judicial Notice re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

4 Exhibit D

View on RECAP

5 Exhibit E

View on PACER

RECAP
32 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of LEO CHYI in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

RECAP
33 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of SHERIFF VICKI HENNESSY in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
34 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of SARA J. EISENBERG in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
35 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of MATTHEW JERZYK in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
36 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of FRANCIS X. WRIGHT, JR. in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

RECAP
37 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of TRACY REEVE in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
38 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of JEANNIE SPRINGER in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
39 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of KENNY F. PITTMAN in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
40 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
41 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of DELIA ROLLINS MUHAMMAD in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C)(Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit B

View on PACER

3 Exhibit C

View on PACER

RECAP
42 Dec. 21, 2018

Declaration of SARITA NAIR in Support of 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Related document(s) 30 ) (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
43 Dec. 21, 2018

Proposed Order re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT by City and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
44 Dec. 21, 2018

NOTICE by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Matthew G. Whitaker re 26 Notice (Other), Notice of Lodging (Simpson, W.) (Filed on 12/21/2018) (Entered: 12/21/2018)

RECAP
45 Dec. 27, 2018

Clerk's Notice CONSENTING TO Video Recording of Motion Hearing set for 2/13/2019 in Cases 3:18-cv-05169-WHO and 3:18-cv-05146-WHO. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/27/2018) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

RECAP
46 Dec. 27, 2018

MOTION to Stay Proceedings in Light of Lapse of Appropriations filed by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Matthew G. Whitaker. Responses due by 1/10/2019. Replies due by 1/17/2019. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of W. Scott Simpson, # 2 Proposed Order)(Simpson, W.) (Filed on 12/27/2018) (Entered: 12/27/2018)

1 Declaration of W. Scott Simpson

View on PACER

2 Proposed Order

View on PACER

RECAP
47 Dec. 28, 2018

ORDER REGARDING AMICUS BRIEFING. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 12/28/2018. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/28/2018) (Entered: 12/28/2018)

RECAP
48 Jan. 2, 2019

ORDER by Judge William H. Orrick denying (46) Motion to Stay in case 3:18-cv-05146-WHO; denying (33) Motion to Stay in case 3:18-cv-05169-WHO. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/2/2019) (Entered: 01/02/2019)

RECAP
49 Jan. 8, 2019

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 24 Case Management Statement filed by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Mathew Whitaker. (Simpson, W.) (Filed on 1/8/2019) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

RECAP
50 Jan. 8, 2019

ORDER granting 49 Stipulation extending briefing schedule re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Response due by 1/16/2019. Reply due by 1/30/2019.Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 1/8/2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/8/2019) (Entered: 01/08/2019)

RECAP
51 Jan. 16, 2019

OPPOSITION/RESPONSE (re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) filed byMatt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Mathew Whitaker. (Simpson, W.) (Filed on 1/16/2019) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

RECAP
52 Jan. 16, 2019

REPLY (re 27 MOTION to Dismiss (Partial) MOTION for Summary Judgment (Partial) ) filed byMatt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, Mathew Whitaker. (Simpson, W.) (Filed on 1/16/2019) (Entered: 01/16/2019)

RECAP
53 Jan. 30, 2019

REPLY (re 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCOS NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT ) City and County of San Francisco's Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

RECAP
54 Jan. 30, 2019

MOTION for Leave to File Brief of Amici Curiae filed by County of Santa Clara. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit)(Lundstrom, Tara) (Filed on 1/30/2019) (Entered: 01/30/2019)

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

RECAP
56 Feb. 13, 2019

Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge William H. Orrick: Motion Hearing held on 2/13/2019. Multiple motions heard. Motions taken under submission; written order to follow. Total Time in Court: 49 minutes. Court Reporter: Debra Pas. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Date Filed: 2/13/2019) (Entered: 02/18/2019)

RECAP
55 Feb. 14, 2019

TRANSCRIPT ORDER for proceedings held on 02/13/2019 before Judge William H. Orrick by City and County of San Francisco, for Court Reporter Debra Pas. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 2/14/2019) (Entered: 02/14/2019)

RECAP
57 Feb. 19, 2019

Request for Judicial Notice Joint Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice re: Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss and for Partial Summary Judgment filed byCity and County of San Francisco. (Eisenberg, Sara) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

RECAP
58 Feb. 19, 2019

NOTICE of Appearance by Aileen Marie McGrath Notice of Appearance of Counsel (McGrath, Aileen) (Filed on 2/19/2019) (Entered: 02/19/2019)

RECAP
59 March 1, 2019

Transcript of Proceedings held on 2-13-2019, before Judge William H. Orrick. Court Reporter/Transcriber Debra L. Pas, CRR, telephone number (415) 431-1477/Email: Debra_Pas@cand.uscourts.gov. Per General Order No. 59 and Judicial Conference policy, this transcript may be viewed only at the Clerk's Office public terminal or may be purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber until the deadline for the Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Any Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, if required, is due no later than 5 business days from date of this filing. (Re (55 in 3:18-cv-05146-WHO) Transcript Order, (43 in 3:18-cv-05169-WHO) Transcript Order ) Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/30/2019. (pasdl50S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/1/2019) (Entered: 03/01/2019)

RECAP
60 March 4, 2019

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL DISMISSAL OR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge William H. Orrick on 3/4/3019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2019) (Entered: 03/04/2019)

Clearinghouse
61 March 14, 2019

STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER re 60 Order Dismissing Case filed by Matt M. Dummermuth, United States Department of Justice, William P. Barr. (Simpson, W.) (Filed on 3/14/2019) (Entered: 03/14/2019)

RECAP
62 March 22, 2019

Order by Judge William H. Orrick granting (61) Stipulation in case 3:18-cv-05146-WHO and associated case 3:18-cv-05169-WHO. The deadline to submit either a stipulated form or judgment or competing judgments is extended by one week to March 25, 2019. (jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/22/2019) (Entered: 03/22/2019)

RECAP
63 March 26, 2019

JUDGMENT AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge William H. Orrick in case 3:18-cv-05146-WHO; granting (50) Stipulation in case 3:18-cv-05169-WHO. Associated Cases: 3:18-cv-05169-WHO, 3:18-cv-05146-WHO(jmdS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2019) (Entered: 03/26/2019)

Clearinghouse
64 April 30, 2019

NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Daniel D. Mauler and withdrawal of W. Scott Simpson as counsel for Defendants (Mauler, Daniel) (Filed on 4/30/2019) (Entered: 04/30/2019)

RECAP
65 May 3, 2019

NOTICE OF APPEAL to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals filed by William P. Barr, Matt M. Dummermuth, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, United States Department of Justice, Mathew Whitaker. Appeal of Order on Stipulation, 63 (Appeal fee FEE WAIVED.) (Mauler, Daniel) (Filed on 5/3/2019) USCA Number 19-15947 (Entered: 05/03/2019)

Clearinghouse
66 May 3, 2019

USCA Case Number 19-15947 9th Circuit for 65 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth, Mathew Whitaker, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, William P. Barr. (amgS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/3/2019) (Entered: 05/10/2019)

RECAP
67 Nov. 8, 2019

ORDER of USCA These appeals remained stayed pending further order of this court. FOR THE COURT; as to 65 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth, Mathew Whitaker, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, William P. Barr (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2019) (Entered: 11/08/2019)

RECAP
68 Nov. 12, 2019

AMENDED 67 ORDER of USCA These appeals remained stayed pending further order of this court, Counsel should contact the undersigned by email within 10 days after the court's decision in City & County of San Francisco v. Barr, Appeal Nos. 18-17308, 18-17311. FOR THE COURT; as to 65 Notice of Appeal, filed by United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth, Mathew Whitaker, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, William P. Barr (aaaS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/12/2019) (Entered: 11/12/2019)

RECAP
69 Aug. 5, 2020

ORDER of USCA (fabS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/5/2020) (Entered: 08/05/2020)

RECAP
70 July 29, 2022

USCA OPINION as to 65 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed by United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth, Mathew Whitaker, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, William P. Barr "AFFIRMED IN PART; VACATED IN PART; REMANDED IN PART."BEA, Circuit(msr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2022) (Entered: 07/29/2022)

Clearinghouse
71 Sept. 20, 2022

MANDATE of USCA as to 65 Notice of Appeal to the Ninth Circuit, filed by United States Department of Justice, Matt M. Dummermuth, Mathew Whitaker, Laura L. Rogers, Jefferson B. Sessions, III, William P. Barr. (gba, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/20/2022) (Entered: 09/20/2022)

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory:

California

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Trump 1.0 & 2.0 Immigration Enforcement Order Challenges

Trump Administration 1.0: Challenges to the Government

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 22, 2018

Closing Date: Sept. 20, 2022

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The City and County of San Francisco

Plaintiff Type(s):

City/County Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Federal

The Attorney General of the United States

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Federalism (including 10th Amendment)

Other Dockets:

Northern District of California 3:18-cv-05146

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-15947

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-15950

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit 19-35843

Available Documents:

Any published opinion

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Trial Court Docket

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed

Relief Sought:

Declaratory judgment

Injunction

Relief Granted:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Reinstatement (job, contract, grant, etc.)

Issues

Immigration/Border:

Sanctuary city/state

Undocumented immigrants - state and local regulation

Recommended Citation