Appeals Court: DOJ Can Hand Out Police Grants Based on Immigration Enforcement

Seattle Police Officers stage near a May Day protest in Seattle. Immigrant and union groups marched in cities across the United States on Monday, to mark May Day and protest against President Donald Trump's efforts to boost deportation.

Seattle Police Officers stage near a May Day protest in Seattle. Immigrant and union groups marched in cities across the United States on Monday, to mark May Day and protest against President Donald Trump's efforts to boost deportation. Ted S. Warren/AP Photo

 

Connecting state and local government leaders

A federal appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can effectively penalize sanctuary cities by awarding preference points for COPS grants to jurisdictions that cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

The Justice Department can make cooperation with immigration authorities a stipulation of grant funding for local police departments, a federal appeals court ruled last week in a decision that marks a loss for Los Angeles and other so-called sanctuary cities.

The ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court decision that blocked the Justice Department from using immigration enforcement-related factors to prioritize community policing grants.

The 2-1 reversal likely means the Justice Department can move forward with selection and disbursement of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program grants, which have been on hold since a lower court issued a nationwide injunction in April 2018 that banned the department from linking the grant money to immigration enforcement. A department spokesman did not address questions this week regarding next steps for the grant program.

The 9th Circuit’s COPS grant ruling marks a rare victory for the administration’s efforts to keep grant money from cities that adopt policies meant to protect undocumented immigrants from deportation.

"The department is pleased that the court recognized the lawful authority of the administration to provide favorable treatment when awarding discretionary law-enforcement grants to jurisdictions that assist in enforcing federal immigration laws,” a DOJ spokesman said in an emailed statement.

The Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office said it is considering next steps in the case, including seeking a rehearing before the full 9th Circuit.

"This case is important for a host of reasons. For one, L.A. has historically relied on COPS funding to support public safety here at home, and gotten it every time we applied until the Trump Administration took office," said Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer in an emailed statement. "For another, if this decision were to stand, this or another Administration could add other conditions, favoring jurisdictions that criminalize abortion, or allow teachers to have guns in classrooms, among others."   

Under former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the Trump administration enacted new conditions for Justice Department-issued grants as a means to encourage state and local law enforcement agencies to cooperate with immigration officials. Three appellate courts in the 3rd, 7th and 9th Circuits have ruled against the DOJ’s other efforts to withhold federal grant funding from municipalities that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities.  

With split rulings against the Justice Department in the other cases, it's unclear what the implications of the COPS grant ruling will be, said city attorney spokesman Rob Wilson. 

"Although the COPS grant is a different type of grant from the one at issue in the other cases, the basic question of whether the Department of Justice has authority to divert money Congress has designated for a specific purpose is at issue in all of these cases," he said. "No court, other than in our case, has decided that DOJ has that blanket authority."

The federal COPS hiring program awarded more than $98 million to 179 police departments in fiscal 2017 to pay for agencies to hire more than 800 officers for community policing.

That year, the Justice Department introduced new grant stipulations that gave preferential points to COPS grant applicants who signed a cooperation agreement allowing the Department of Homeland Security access to suspected illegal immigrants in jail facilities and alerted immigration authorities about their pending release from custody 48 hours in advance. Preferential points were also given to applicants that listed illegal immigration as a focus area for the grant.

Similar notice and access provisions were also included as stipulations of the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, which also became the subject of lawsuits by cities, including Philadelphia, San Francisco and Chicago.

Los Angeles has also filed a lawsuit challenging the Byrne JAG stipulations, but Friday’s ruling concerned only the COPS grant money.

Los Angeles received COPS grants through the federal program in 2012 and 2016.  The city intended the 2017 grant money to pay help fund its Community Safety Partnership Program, which deploys officers to select public housing developments to engage with at-risk youth, ensure safe passage on school routes, and build relationships in the communities in the neighborhoods, said city attorney spokesman Rob Wilcox. 

In its 2017 application, Los Angeles did not sign the DHS cooperation agreement and listed “building trust and respect” rather than “illegal immigration” as its intended focus area. When the city did not receive a COPS hiring grant in fiscal 2017, it filed a lawsuit alleging the Justice Department had overstepped its authority and violated the separation of powers among the branches of government as laid out in the Constitution.

But Friday’s ruling, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Sandra S. Ikuta, found the Justice Department “did not exceed its statutory authority in awarding bonus points to applicants that selected the illegal immigration focus area or that agreed to the Certification.”

“[A]n award of grant funds to states or localities that intend to focus on illegal immigration is well within the statute’s scope, and DOJ has broad discretion to adopt such a focus area,”  Ikuta wrote.

Ikuta was joined in her opinion by Judge Jay S. Bybee. Both were appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush. Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, dissented.

The Justice Department’s insistence on not distributing grant money while lawsuits challenging its new grant policies were pending held up funds destined for both cities with sanctuary policies as well as those that did not have them.  

Other cities that had sued over grant stipulations include Philadelphia and Chicago.

The 3rd Circuit sided with Philadelphia on its legal challenge earlier this year, ruling that the conditions the Justice Department placed on the Byrne JAG awards were “unlawfully imposed.”

In the Chicago case, the 7th Circuit in 2018 upheld a lower court ruling that banned the Justice Department from enforcing the notice and access requirements in the Byrne JAG grant.

Editor's Note: This story was updated on Wednesday to add comments from the Los Angeles City Attorney's office.

Andrea Noble is a staff correspondent with Route Fifty.

FEATURED CASE STUDIES
Powered By The Atlas
Forecasting Ambulance Needs for the City of San Diego
San Diego, CA, USA
A large urban park creates a "connected" visitor experience with SMART.NODEs™
Sydney NSW, Australia
Community feedback increases 13x in Lancaster, PA with both offline and online engagement methods
Lancaster, PA, USA

NEXT STORY: Judges Can’t Decide Whether Freedom Extends to Your Car

X
This website uses cookies to enhance user experience and to analyze performance and traffic on our website. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. Learn More / Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Accept Cookies
X
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

When you visit our website, we store cookies on your browser to collect information. The information collected might relate to you, your preferences or your device, and is mostly used to make the site work as you expect it to and to provide a more personalized web experience. However, you can choose not to allow certain types of cookies, which may impact your experience of the site and the services we are able to offer. Click on the different category headings to find out more and change our default settings according to your preference. You cannot opt-out of our First Party Strictly Necessary Cookies as they are deployed in order to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting the cookie banner and remembering your settings, to log into your account, to redirect you when you log out, etc.). For more information about the First and Third Party Cookies used please follow this link.

Allow All Cookies

Manage Consent Preferences

Strictly Necessary Cookies - Always Active

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data, Targeting & Social Media Cookies

Under the California Consumer Privacy Act, you have the right to opt-out of the sale of your personal information to third parties. These cookies collect information for analytics and to personalize your experience with targeted ads. You may exercise your right to opt out of the sale of personal information by using this toggle switch. If you opt out we will not be able to offer you personalised ads and will not hand over your personal information to any third parties. Additionally, you may contact our legal department for further clarification about your rights as a California consumer by using this Exercise My Rights link

If you have enabled privacy controls on your browser (such as a plugin), we have to take that as a valid request to opt-out. Therefore we would not be able to track your activity through the web. This may affect our ability to personalize ads according to your preferences.

Targeting cookies may be set through our site by our advertising partners. They may be used by those companies to build a profile of your interests and show you relevant adverts on other sites. They do not store directly personal information, but are based on uniquely identifying your browser and internet device. If you do not allow these cookies, you will experience less targeted advertising.

Social media cookies are set by a range of social media services that we have added to the site to enable you to share our content with your friends and networks. They are capable of tracking your browser across other sites and building up a profile of your interests. This may impact the content and messages you see on other websites you visit. If you do not allow these cookies you may not be able to use or see these sharing tools.

If you want to opt out of all of our lead reports and lists, please submit a privacy request at our Do Not Sell page.

Save Settings
Cookie Preferences Cookie List

Cookie List

A cookie is a small piece of data (text file) that a website – when visited by a user – asks your browser to store on your device in order to remember information about you, such as your language preference or login information. Those cookies are set by us and called first-party cookies. We also use third-party cookies – which are cookies from a domain different than the domain of the website you are visiting – for our advertising and marketing efforts. More specifically, we use cookies and other tracking technologies for the following purposes:

Strictly Necessary Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Functional Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Performance Cookies

We do not allow you to opt-out of our certain cookies, as they are necessary to ensure the proper functioning of our website (such as prompting our cookie banner and remembering your privacy choices) and/or to monitor site performance. These cookies are not used in a way that constitutes a “sale” of your data under the CCPA. You can set your browser to block or alert you about these cookies, but some parts of the site will not work as intended if you do so. You can usually find these settings in the Options or Preferences menu of your browser. Visit www.allaboutcookies.org to learn more.

Sale of Personal Data

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Social Media Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.

Targeting Cookies

We also use cookies to personalize your experience on our websites, including by determining the most relevant content and advertisements to show you, and to monitor site traffic and performance, so that we may improve our websites and your experience. You may opt out of our use of such cookies (and the associated “sale” of your Personal Information) by using this toggle switch. You will still see some advertising, regardless of your selection. Because we do not track you across different devices, browsers and GEMG properties, your selection will take effect only on this browser, this device and this website.