Filed Date: Oct. 12, 2018
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case is a response to efforts by the Trump Administration to strip law enforcement funding from “sanctuary” cities and states unless their governments agree to participate in federal immigration enforcement. The City of Chicago previously sued the Department of Justice over these conditions in 2017; details of that ongoing case can be found here.
The City of Chicago filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois on October 12, 2018. The plaintiff, represented by its Department of Law and private attorneys, sued the U.S. Attorney General under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.). The City of Chicago claimed that immigration-related conditions imposed by the government on federal funding to the city were unauthorized by Congress, ultra vires, and in violation of principles of federalism and anti-comandeering. The City of Chicago sought declaratory relief, as well as an injunction to prevent the government from imposing the immigrationp policy conditions on the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne JAG) program, which provided support for Chicago law enforcement. The case was assigned to Judge Harry D. Leinenweber.
In its complaint, Chicago pointed out that this court had recently struck down many of the same conditions at issue here, referring to a permanent injunction that had been entered to prevent the conditions from being applied to Byrne JAG grants in the prior fiscal year. The City of Chicago alleged that despite this injunction, the government was again attempting to impose unlawful immigration-related conditions on the Byrne JAG grants for fiscal year 2018. The City stated that three of the FY2018 conditions were materially identical to FY2017 conditions which had already been set aside by the court. These conditions required grant recipients to: give the federal government 48-hour notice prior to an arrestee’s release; give federal immigration officials unlimited access to local police stations and law enforcement facilities; and comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which bars local governments from restricting their employees from sharing citizenship and immigration status information with federal immigration authorities. The City of Chicago also alleged that the government added an additional unlawful condition for FY2018: requiring cities to certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1644, meaning they would not publicly disclose federal law enforcement information in an attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection fugitives from justice or undocumented immigrants.
The City of Chicago filed an amended complaint on December 17, 2018, addressing the issue of Attorney General Sessions’s resignation, which occurred in November. The City alleged that Matthew Whitaker’s assumption of Sessions’s duties violated federal law and the Appointments Clause. Furthermore, Chicago alleged that since the city received an award letter for its FY2018 Byrne JAG grant shortly after Whitaker took over, Whitaker could not impose the challenged grant conditions on Chicago, because he could not lawfully exercise the powers of the Attorney General. The City of Chicago later abandoned this claim because Whitaker was appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate in February 2019.
The Attorney General filed a motion for partial dismissal on March 1, 2019, with regard to the plaintiff's claims not already covered by the district court's ruling in the 2017 case.
On April 3, 2019, Chicago filed a motion for partial summary judgment on its claims that the conditions imposed on FY2018 Byrne JAG awards were ultra vires, violated the separation of powers and the Spending Clause, and were contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.
On September 19, 2019, Judge Leinenweber granted in part and denied in part both parties' motions. First, he held that Chicago had sufficiently alleged an injury-in-fact to establish standing. Next, he found that DOJ's proposed placement of these conditions was final agency action subject to judicial review, and that the Attorney General lacked statutory authority to place the conditions on the city's receipt of Byrne JAG funding; thus, the DOJ's imposition of the conditions violated the separation of powers and was ultra vires. He also held that § 1644 violated the Tenth Amendment because it prevented state or local government entities/officials from prohibiting disclosure of immigration statute to or from federal immigration authorities (he noted that § 1644's language was essentially identical to § 1373, which had been found unconstitutional in the 2017 case). Finally, he decided that a permanent injunction was warranted.
Judge Leinenweber noted that the district court's last injunction, in the 2017 litigation, was limited to the FY2017 Byrne JAG program in the hope that the DOJ would not reimpose its unlawful conditions. But, because the DOJ did impose the conditions again in FY2018, the Judge found it appropriate to enter a permanent injunction covering all future years of the Byrne JAG program. However, because the nationwide scope of the injunction in the 2017 case was currently stayed pending decision from the Seventh Circuit, the Judge stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction in this case, pending the outcome of that appeal. 405 F.Supp.3d 748.
On November 18, 2019, the Attorney General filed an appeal to the Seventh Circuit (docket no. 19-3290).
On November 20, 2019, the Seventh Circuit consolidated the appeal of the injunction in this case with the appeal of the injunction in the 2017 case, City of Chicago v. Sessions.
On March 6, 2020, Chicago filed a motion for attorney fees with the district court.
On April 30, 2020, the Seventh Circuit affirmed Judge Leinenweber's grant of injunctive relief to Chicago and extended it nationwide. The Court found that while the executive branch has significant powers in the realm of immigration, it does not have Congress' power of the purse and thus cannot withhold Byrne JAG grants in order to force Chicago to alter its behavior. The Court affirmed the district court's grants of declaratory relief to Chicago, finding that the Attorney General exceeded the authority delegated to him by Congress in imposing the challenged conditions to the FY2017 and FY2018 grants, and that the Attorney General's decision to impose the conditions in both years violated the separation of powers.
The Court found it unnecessary to reach the constitutionality of § 1373 under the anti-commandeering doctrine. The government had relied on language in 34 U.S.C. § 10153 to support its imposition of the compliance condition. § 10153 stated that in a request for a grant, the application shall include a certification that the applicant "will comply with all provisions of this part and all other applicable Federal laws." The government had argued that the reference to "all other applicable Federal laws" allowed it to require that applicants certify compliance with § 1373. However, the Seventh Circuit disagreed with this interpretation and instead found that the phrase could not be construed so broadly as to encompass all federal laws that applied to states or localities, including federal immigration statutes.
The Court also held that a nationwide injunction was proper due to the interconnected nature of applicants for the Byrne JAG grants. In order for the grant amounts to be properly calculated for Chicago, the Court held that the unlawful conditions could not be imposed elsewhere. Finally, the Court remanded for the district court to determine whether any other injunctive relief was appropriate in light of its determination that § 10153 could not be used to incorporate laws unrelated to the grants or grantees. 957 F.3d 772.
Following the Seventh Circuit Opinion, Judge Leinenweber provided the parties time to file briefs proposing modification or adjustments to the court’s initial order in light of the appellate decision. In light of these briefs, on January 13, 2021, the District Court withdrew its declaration that 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 and 1644 are unconstitutional. Although the Seventh Circuit’s mandate did not order the Court to vacate this declaration, the District Court maintained that the remanding opinion indicated that such a declaratory judgment was no longer necessary. 513 F.Supp.3d 828.
An amended final judgment was filed on February 5, 2021 in favor of the City of Chicago and against the Attorney General. The Court’s judgment declared that the Attorney General’s immigration policy conditions to the FY 2018 Byrne JAG grant violated the constitutional principle of separation of powers. The Court also provided injunctive relief for the Attorney General was permanently enjoined from denying or delaying issuance of the Byrne JAG award in FY 2018 or any other future program year insofar as that denial or delay is based on the challenged immigration policy conditions or materially identical conditions. The permanent injunction ran to the benefit of all Byrne JAG applicants and recipients, and the Court noted it was not limited to the City of Chicago.
The Attorney General appealed the amended final judgment to the Seventh Circuit on April 6, 2021 (Docket No. 21-1604). The City of Chicago cross-appealed on April 19, 2021 (Docket No. 21-1701). The Seventh Circuit consolidated these appeals.
On April 28, 2021, the District Court granted and denied in part the City of Chicago’s motion for attorney’s fees, thereby awarding the City $391,168.55. The Attorney General appealed the award of attorney’s fees to the Seventh Circuit on June 25, 2021 (Docket No. 21-2200). 2021 WL 1676387.
The parties then began settlement negotiations wherein monthly status updates were provided to the Court beginning in September of 2021.
On March 8, 2022, an amended final judgment and order was filed, clarifying that the permanent injunction shall not preclude the Attorney General from requiring Byrne JAG applicants to provide a general certification that they will comply with applicable federal law.
As a result of the March 8 order, all Seventh Circuit appeals were voluntarily dismissed on March 22, 2022 and April 25, 2022.
As of February 13, 2024, the case is ongoing for purposes of enforcing the permanent injunction.
Summary Authors
Sam Kulhanek (5/14/2020)
Kavitha Babu (2/12/2024)
City of Chicago v. Sessions, Northern District of Illinois (2017)
State of Illinois v. Barr, Northern District of Illinois (2019)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8020598/parties/the-city-of-chicago-v-william-p-barr/
Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)
Attorney, Tiffany Wright,
Attorney, Daniel Tenny,
Attorney, Bradley Hinshelwood,
Attorney, Chad Golder,
Adegbile, Debo Patrick (New York)
Baxenberg, Justin (District of Columbia)
Crowl, Matthew Charles (Illinois)
Evans, Ari (District of Columbia)
Gorelick, Jamie S. (District of Columbia)
Holtzblatt, Ari (District of Columbia)
Houppert, Justin Anthony (Illinois)
Jennings, Molly (District of Columbia)
Kahlon, Harnaik Singh (Illinois)
Ogden, David W. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/8020598/the-city-of-chicago-v-william-p-barr/
Last updated March 22, 2025, 10:40 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
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: Oct. 12, 2018
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The City of Chicago
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
U.S. Department of Justice (Washington, D.C. ), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 551 et seq.
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Illinois 1:18-cv-06859
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 18-02885
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 19-03290
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 21-01604
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 21-01701
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 21-02200
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Relief Granted:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: $391,168.55
Issues
General/Misc.:
Immigration/Border: