Cty. of Santa Clara v. Trump - 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 (N.D. Cal. 2017)

Rule:

To succeed in injunction motions, plaintiffs must show that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor. 

Facts:

This case involves Executive Order 13768, "Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States," which, in addition to outlining a number of immigration enforcement policies, purports to "[e]nsure that jurisdictions that fail to comply with applicable Federal law do not receive Federal funds, except as mandated by law" and to establish a procedure whereby "sanctuary jurisdictions" shall be ineligible to receive federal grants. Executive Order 13768, 82 Fed. Reg. 8799 (Jan. 25, 2017) (the "Executive Order"). In two related actions, the County of Santa Clara and the City and County of San Francisco have challenged Section 9 of the Executive Order as facially unconstitutional and have brought motions for preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin its enforcement. The Counties challenge the enforcement provision of the Order, Section 9(a), on several grounds: first, it violates the separation of powers doctrine enshrined in the Constitution because it improperly seeks to wield congressional spending powers; second, it is so over-broad and coercive that even if the President had spending powers, the Order would clearly exceed them and violate the Tenth Amendment's prohibition against commandeering local jurisdictions; third, it is so vague and standard-less that it violates the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause and is void for vagueness; and, finally, because it seeks to deprive local jurisdictions of congressionally allocated funds without any notice or opportunity to be heard, it violates the procedural due process requirements of the Fifth Amendment. The Government does not respond to the Counties' constitutional challenges but argues that the Counties lack standing because the Executive Order does not change existing law and because the Counties have not been named "sanctuary jurisdictions" pursuant to the Order.

Issue:

Did the Counties meet the burden of showing that they are likely to face immediate irreparable harm absent an injunction, that they are likely to succeed on the merits, and that the balance of harms and public interest weighs in their favor?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court held that the Counties were entitled to a temporary injunction in a suit challenging the constitutionality of Exec. Order No. 13768, § 9, which sought to preclude jurisdictions that failed to comply with immigration enforcement law from receiving federal funds and to establish a procedure whereby sanctuary jurisdictions would be ineligible for federal grants. The Counties established that they would suffer irreparable harm because the Order caused constitutional injuries by violating the separation of powers doctrine, by depriving them of their Tenth and Fifth Amendment rights, and by causing budget uncertainty by threatening to deprive them of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal grants that supported core services. The Counties were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, and the balance of harms and public interest decisively weighed in favor of an injunction.