ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - BYRNE JAG FUNDS AND IMMIGRATION: HOW STATUTORY INTERPRETATION HELPED PROTECT THE SEPARATION OF POWERS - CITY OF PROVIDENCE V. BARR.

• Author: Savard, Brianna
• Position: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

Text

[*245]

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (Byrne JAG) provides grants to state and local governments for uses in certain criminal justice programs, such as law enforcement and corrections programs. (1)As part of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) efforts to force certain cities to help federal immigration agencies implement strict federal immigration-related laws, the DOJ began placing conditions on certain "sanctuary cities'" Byrne JAG funds for fiscal year 2017 (FY2017). (2)In City of Providence v. Barr, (3)the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit dealt with the issue of whether the DOJ [*246] exceeded its statutory authority when it imposed the immigration-related conditions on the Byrne JAG funds. (4)The First Circuit upheld the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, thus joining three other Circuit Court decisions in holding that the DOJ exceeded its statutory authority by imposing the challenged conditions on the Byrne JAG funds. (5)However, in their decision, the First Circuit refused to further determine whether the DOJ's actions were unconstitutional and violated the separation of powers. (6)

[*247] The Rhode Island cities of Providence and Central Falls (Cities) applied for and received Byrne JAG funds every year [*248] since 2006, and timely applied for FY2017 funds. (7)Providence planned to use the Byrne JAG funding to cover overtime expenses for "hotspot" area patrols, hiring a bilingual interpreter, and placing a "public notice ad" in the local paper. (8)Central Falls planned to use the Byrne JAG funding to improve cyber-security on the local law enforcement's network. (9)

On June 26, 2018, the Cities received notice from the DOJ that their FY2017 Byrne JAG funds were approved, awarding Providence $ 212,112 and Central Falls $ 28,677. (10)In the grant award letters, the DOJ included three new conditions known as the notice, access, and certification conditions (Challenged Conditions). (11)The Cities saw these conditions as contradictory to [*249] their "sanctuary city" policies that they believe "build trust between their [departments]... and [the] immigrant communities" they serve. (12)

On August 15, 2019, the Cities filed suit against the DOJ in the United States District Court for the District of Rhode Island seeking to enjoin the DOJ from imposing the Challenged Conditions. (13)After a lengthy back and forth, the Cities and DOJ filed cross-motions for summary judgment. (14)Ultimately, the [*250] district court granted summary judgment for the Cities, holding that the DOJ exceeded its authority in imposing the Challenged Conditions, permanently enjoining the DOJ from enforcing them, and issuing a writ of mandamus directing the DOJ to disburse the Cities' FY2017 Byrne JAG funds. (15)On appeal, the First Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, stressing that the DOJ exceeded its statutory authority in imposing the Challenged Conditions, but denied reviewing whether the DOJ's actions violated the Spending Clause of the Constitution. (16)

[*251] Sanctuary policies for immigrants date back to the 1980s. (17)Congress established 8 U.S.C. [section] 1373 in 1996 as a response to the rise in immigration rates and localities adopting sanctuary [*252] policies. (18)The statute prohibits federal, state, and local governments and agencies from enacting laws and policies that would limit communication with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) about "information regarding the immigration or citizenship status... of any individual." (19)Ten years later in 2006, Congress established the Byrne JAG program to provide additional funding for state and local law enforcement agencies. (20)In the statute establishing the Byrne JAG program, recipients [*253] must certify that they "will comply with... all other applicable Federal laws" in order to receive their funds. (21)The two statutes began intersecting within the last few years when Congress attempted to enact numerous legislative acts that would have made federal funding to state and local governments conditional on the recipient's compliance with Section 1373. (22)

In May of 2016, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) of the DOJ released a report evaluating ten jurisdictions that had sanctuary policies in place and were receiving Byrne JAG funding. (23)The report stated that various policies in these jurisdictions [*254] had the "potential to affect" local officials' understanding regarding their duty to communicate with federal immigration officials, and such policies were possibly in violation of Section 1373. (24)On January 25, 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13768, which in part directed the Attorney General to withhold federal grant funding from sanctuary jurisdictions who "willfully refuse to comply with" Section 1373. (25)In a July 2017 press release, the Attorney General stated all FY2017 applicants for Byrne JAG funds will be required to certify compliance with Section 1373 and with new "notice" and "access" conditions. (26)

[*255] In response to the new DOJ mandates and imposed conditions on federal Byrne JAG funding, state and local governments quickly reacted by seeking judicial intervention. (27)The city of Philadelphia was one of the first local jurisdictions to file suit against the DOJ, seeking to enjoin the Department from enforcing the Challenged Conditions. (28)Shortly after, the cities of Chicago and Los Angeles and the state of New York filed their own lawsuits against the DOJ and the Challenged Conditions. (29)The respective Circuit Court for each case affirmed that [*256] the DOJ lacked the statutory authority to impose the Challenged Conditions, except for the Second Circuit when it created a circuit split and held the DOJ did have the requisite authority. (30)

In City of Providence, the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit addressed whether the DOJ could lawfully impose immigration-related special conditions on certain sanctuary jurisdictions' Byrne JAG funds. (31)The court began its analysis by [*257] reviewing the statute establishing the Byrne JAG program. (32)By "effectuating congressional intent" of the statute, the First Circuit first determined that the DOJ stretched the language of the statute beyond its plain and ordinary meaning. (33)The First Circuit [*258] held that the statutory language in the Byrne JAG statute did not provide the "capacious view" of authority the DOJ and Seventh Circuit believed it did. (34)Moreover, the First Circuit gave particular focus to Congress's inclusion of "specific deviations" within the distribution formula of the Byrne JAG statute as evidence of Congress's intent that the DOJ would not have free rein over disbursement decisions. (35)

[*259] The First Circuit concluded their analysis by reviewing 34 U.S.C. [section] 10102, the statute establishing the duties and functions of the Assistant Attorney General (Assistant AG). (36)By utilizing tools of statutory interpretation, the First Circuit found that the statute's plain meaning did not provide the Assistant AG absolute discretion to withhold grant funds whenever they see fit. (37)In finding that the DOJ lacked any authority to impose the [*260] Challenged Conditions in both the Byrne JAG and Assistant AG statutes, the First Circuit refused to consider whether the DOJ acted arbitrarily and capriciously or violated the Spending Clause of the United States constitution. (38)

The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit properly held that the DOJ lacked the statutory authority to impose immigration-related conditions upon local governments' Byrne JAG funds. (39)This First Circuit's decision in City of Providence [*261] provided a much-needed analysis regarding the Executive Branch's decades-long attempt to coerce state and local governments into enforcing federal immigration policies specifically within sanctuary jurisdictions. (40)The First Circuit rejected the Second Circuit's generous interpretation of the Byrne JAG and Assistant AG statutes and joined their sister courts in the Third, [*262] Seventh, and Ninth Circuits in holding that the DOJ may not impose unrelated conditions upon a state and local government's federal grant funds. (41)By doing so, the First Circuit strengthened the importance of statutory context in determining the boundaries of the federal government's powers. (42)

However, the First Circuit's decision not to analyze whether the DOJ's actions were unconstitutional under the Spending Clause was detrimental. (43)The DOJ attempted to circumvent its lack of congressionally sanctioned power by using federal funding [*263] to force state and local governments into fulfilling the Executive Branch's immigration policies. (44)The DOJ and the Executive Branch have the power to disburse Byrne JAG funds, but must do so while abiding by a specific formula created by Congress as they are the only branch of the government with the "power of the purse." (45)Such actions by the DOJ and Executive Branch are not only a statutory overreach, but a breakdown of the separation of powers established in the Constitution and should be determined as such. (46)

[*264] Moreover, the First Circuit's reluctance to extend their analysis beyond statutory interpretation places state and local governments at risk of more federal overreach. (47)In limiting their analysis to strictly statutory interpretation, the First Circuit failed to explain why Congress did not grant the DOJ unlimited authority in determining howand when to disburse grant funds to state and local governments. (48)It is strongly implied by the statutory language and context that Congress understood the potential repercussions of delegating too much power away from the Legislative branch to the Executive branch. (49)Therefore, [*265] by carefully sculpting the statutory language, Congress slightly limited any possible separation...