Sessions Fails in Bid to End Phila.'s Suit Over Sanctuary City Defunding Threat
A federal judge has ruled that Philadelphia can proceed with its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has threatened to withhold federal grant money over its sanctuary city policies.
March 13, 2018 at 06:38 PM
3 minute read
Philadelphia City Hall. Photo: Jon Bilous/Shutterstock.com
A federal judge has ruled that Philadelphia can proceed with its lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has threatened to withhold federal grant money over its sanctuary city policies.
U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Tuesday denied Sessions' motion to dismiss the case, captioned City of Philadelphia v. Sessions. The lawsuit was aimed at preventing the attorney general from withdrawing a Justice Assistance Grant providing more than $1 million to the city annually.
Although Sessions has contended that the grant money should be withheld because the city is not in compliance with federal immigration law, the city government is arguing that Sessions violated the Administrative Procedure Act by imposing new conditions before awarding the money.
According to Baylson, the city had shown a strong enough case to proceed with its claims.
“The city continues to present an eminently plausible reading of this language, and the court therefore denies defendant Sessions' motion to dismiss,” Baylson said.
Baylson's ruling, contained in a 27-page opinion, comes about five months after he issued a sweeping 132-page opinion siding with the city regarding the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. Section 1373, which says municipalities can't bar their officers and agents from sharing immigration information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Given Philadelphia's unique approach to meshing the legitimate needs of the federal government to remove criminal aliens with the city's promotion of health and safety, there is no conflict of any significance,” Baylson said in the opinion. “For all these reasons, the court finds Philadelphia can properly certify, as required by Section 1373, its substantial compliance with Byrne JAG conditions, and the attorney general will be enjoined from denying the city's Byrne JAG grant for FY 2017.”
The issue of so-called “sanctuary” jurisdictions, which have policies limiting what information local law enforcement officers can share with immigration officials, has gained national attention in recent years. The issue became more contentious last year after President Donald Trump signed an executive order promising to cut federal funding to such municipalities, including Philadelphia, and tensions have continued to grow, with Sessions filing a lawsuit last week against California seeking to block recently enacted state laws.
Philadelphia's suit lodges six counts against Sessions, contending, among other things, that withholding the funds based on the proposed conditions would violate the separation of powers doctrine, that the conditions are arbitrary and capricious, and would violate the spending clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Baylson denied attempts to dismiss each claim, saying that, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the city has presented enough facts to proceed.
Hogan Lovells attorney Virginia Gibson is representing the Philadelphia city government in the case.
“The city is gratified by the court's decision to deny the Department of Justice's motion to dismiss our lawsuit,” Mike Dunn, spokesman for Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney, said in an emailed statement. “This allows the case to move forward, as the city seeks to stop Attorney General Jeff Sessions from adding unlawful conditions to the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) program.”
A spokesman with the U.S. Department of Justice declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readPa. Superior Court's Next Leader Looks Ahead to Looming Challenges in Coming Years
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 2Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
- 3Morgan & Morgan Looks to Grow Into Complex Litigation While Still Keeping its Billboards Up
- 4Thursday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250