New York v. United States DOJ - 951 F.3d 84 (2d Cir. 2020)

Rule:

The immigration-related conditions imposed by the Attorney General of the United States on the receipt of Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program grants do not impermissibly intrude on powers reserved to the States. U.S. Const. Amend. X. In the realm of immigration policy, it is the federal government that maintains broad, and preeminent, power, power, which is codified in an extensive and complex statutory scheme. Thus, at the same time that the Supreme Court has acknowledged States' understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration, it has made clear that a State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law. The states have no power, by taxation or otherwise, to retard, impede, burden, or in any manner control, the operations of the constitutional laws enacted by congress to carry into execution the powers vested in the general government. This fundamental principle, a bedrock of the court's federalism, is no less applicable today. Indeed, it pertains with particular force when, Congress acts pursuant to its power under the Spending Clause. U.S. Const. art. I, § 8. 

Facts:

Invoking this court's interlocutory jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1), defendants the United States Department of Justice and the Attorney General of the United States appealed from an award of partial summary judgment entered granting plaintiffs, the States of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, et al., and the City of New York an injunctive relief from three immigration-related conditions imposed by defendant on the receipt of 2017 Byrne Program Criminal Justice Assistance grants. Those conditions required 2017 Byrne grant applicants (1) to certify their willingness to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373; (2) to provide assurance that, upon written request of federal immigration authorities, grant recipients would provide notice of an incarcerated alien's scheduled release date; and (3) to certify that grant recipients would afford federal authorities access to State incarcerated suspected aliens in order for those authorities to determine the aliens' right to remain in the United States. The district court's judgment not only enjoined defendant from enforcing these three requirements as to any of plaintiffs' 2017 Byrne grants but also mandates that defendant released the withheld 2017 funds to plaintiffs without regard to the challenged conditions. Three of the sister circuits have now upheld injunctions precluding enforcement of some or all of the challenged conditions as to other jurisdictions applying for Byrne grants. In urging reversal, defendant argued that the district court erred in holding that the challenged conditions violate the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., and the Constitution. 

Issue:

Did the conditions violate either APA or the Constitution?

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court concluded that the challenged conditions did not violate either the APA or the Constitution. Thus, the court reversed the challenged judgment in favor of plaintiffs and the case was remanded. The court held that the federal government could deny grants to State and local governments that would be eligible for them but for their refusal to comply with the Attorney General's immigration-related conditions because the Certification Condition was authorized by 34 U.S.C.S. § 10153(a)(5)(D)'s requirement that applicants comply with all other applicable Federal laws and did not violate the Tenth Amendment's anticommandeering principle; the Notice Condition was authorized by § 10153(a)(4)'s reporting requirement, § 10153(a)(5)(C)'s coordination requirement, and 34 U.S.C.S. § 10155's rule-making authority; and the Access Condition was authorized by § 10153(a)(5)(C)'s coordination requirement and § 10155's rule-making authority. The Court ruled that the Attorney General did not overlook important detrimental effects of the challenged conditions so as to make their imposition arbitrary and capricious.