Federal Appeals Court Ruling a Win for Philadelphia's Sanctuary City Policy
A federal appeals court has upheld Philadelphia's policy of noncooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in rounding up undocumented immigrants within city limits and said the city cannot be cut off from federal funding because of it.
February 15, 2019 at 11:08 AM
4 minute read
A federal appeals court has ruled that the U.S. attorney general cannot cut off federal funding to the city of Philadelphia over its policy of noncooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement in rounding up undocumented immigrants within city limits.
The ruling—which comes shortly after President Donald Trump's declaration of a national emergency at the southern border with Mexico—stems from the city's 2017 lawsuit against then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, arguing the Philadelphia Police Department is not an arm of immigration enforcement, and that making it one would damage community relations.
In June, U.S. District Judge Michael Baylson of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania held in a 93-page ruling that Sessions could not impose requirements that the city assist in ICE roundups of undocumented immigrants as a condition of receiving about $1.6 million in federal money from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, earmarked for local law enforcement. The three requirements—that a city must provide ICE access to prisons to interview suspects, notice when undocumented immigrants are to be released from prison, and that the city is restricted from withholding a person's citizenship status—formed the basis of Philadelphia's lawsuit.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit agreed with Baylson's interpretation of the law, noting that the attorney general does not have the authority to cut off federal funding.
“After reviewing the three sources of authority offered by the attorney general, we hold that Congress has not empowered the attorney general to enact the challenged conditions. Because the attorney general exceeded his statutory authority in promulgating the challenged conditions, we needn't reach Philadelphia's other arguments,” Senior Judge Marjorie Rendell wrote in the Third Circuit's opinion.
Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney praised the ruling in a statement Friday morning.
“Philadelphia is proud to be a city that welcomes all of those who seek safe haven, and this ruling affirms our right to do so. The conditions imposed by the DOJ were an unconscionable attempt to bully the city and its residents into changing our policies. Our residents—particularly our immigrant communities—can take comfort now that two federal courts have soundly rejected these strong arm tactics,” Kenney said. “On the very day the president declared a bogus national emergency to build a useless wall, I say to our immigrant community: we are glad you call Philadelphia home, and we will continue to fight for you. Protecting our city's welcoming policies is not only the best thing to do for our immigrants—it is the right thing to do for our great city.”
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
In the June ruling, Baylson said the Trump administration's view that undocumented immigrants are significant contributors to an allegedly rising crime rate in the city was simply false. Further, Baylson called the conditions “arbitrary and capricious.”
The DOJ outlined its appeal to the Third Circuit in a brief filed in late August.
The DOJ's 62-page filing says that the district court held a “sprawling preliminary injunction hearing and trial on immigration policy writ large,” and that it improperly limited the DOJ's authority without a sufficient statutory basis.
“Worse still, not only does the court improperly restrain the department's ability to impose these and other similar conditions that it has historically imposed without objection, but it did all this based on the judicial overreach of expounding on broad policy questions that were not before it and that are committed to the legislative and executive branches,” the DOJ said. “The court's order must be set aside.”
The city was represented by a team of lawyers from Hogan Lovells including partners Neal Katyal and Virginia Gibson, and associates Jasmeet Ahuja, Alex Bowerman, Kirti Datla, and Matt Higgins.
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
© 2025 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 AllLawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
6 minute read3rd Circuit Strikes Down NLRB’s Monetary Remedies for Fired Starbucks Workers
Trending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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