Draft:City of Chicago v. Sessions

City of Chicago v. Sessions is a ruling by the Seventh Circuit Court of the United States regarding the power of the executive - specifically the Attorney General - to impose restrictions on so-called sanctuary cities that receive federal funds to assist with law enforcement for not complying with stipulations provided by the Attorney General. In other words, "Citing separation of powers, the Seventh Circuit strikes the Attorney General's attempt to impose conditions on the receipt of law enforcement grant funds by 'sanctuary cities'".

Background

The case originates with the Attorney General attempting to place restrictions on Chicago’s reception of Byrne JAG funds. These are federal funds that assist with law enforcement costs. However, the Department of Justice stipulated that Chicago had to provide information on the immigration status of people they detained. The city of Chicago refused to agree to this as it violated their statute as a "welcoming" city for immigrants, and as a result the Department of Justice and the Attorney General threatened to withhold these funds. The city of Chicago argued that this would interfere with law enforcement because undocumented immigrants "might avoid contacting local police to report crimes as a witness or a victim if they fear that reporting will bring the scrutiny of the federal immigration authorities to their home. The DOJ alleged that Chicago could not restrict communication between the federal government and local governments. The DOJ stated that complying with the order included "allowing DHS to enter city correctional or detention facilities, interrogate arrestees about their immigration status". Meanwhile Chicago alleged "the DOJ was unlawfully coercing the city to choose between accepting the new unconstitutional conditions and losing its 'welcoming’ policy to retain funding, or to reject them and lose funding critical for public safety". The city also alleged that the "DOJ was usurping the authority both of Congress to spend funds, and of state and local governments to administer their own law enforcement". Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit Court of the United States ruling was in favor of the City of Chicago, stating that the Department of Justice had violated the separation of powers embedded in the Constitution.

Decision

The Court ruled in favor of the city of Chicago, but they asserted that the ruling was not a matter of immigration policy rather a matter of constitutionality. The opinion states, "The issue before us strikes at one of the bedrock principles of our nation, the protection of which transcends political party affiliation and rests at the heart of your system of government—the separation of powers". So, the Court ruled that the executive had overreached in its authority over federal spending because Congress had not approved of the restrictions on Byrne JAG funding. The Court states, "If the Executive Branch can determine policy, and then use the power of the purse to mandate compliance with that policy by the state and local governments, all without the authorization or even acquiescence elected legislators,that check against tyranny forsaken. Overall, the Department of Justice’s actions in this case violate the separations of power.

The Constitution explicitly states that Congress has "the power of the purse". They assert that Congress did not, at any time, accept or enact any funding restrictions on sanctuary cities. The opinion asserts, "the power of the purse rests with Congress, which authorized the federal funds at issue and did not impose any immigration enforcement conditions on the receipt of such funds. In fact, Congress repeatedly refused to approve of measures that would tie funding to state and local immigration policies". So, despite the fact that Congress only has the power to approve financial stipulations, and that Congress repeatedly refused to approve of any measures like the one at hand, the Department of Justice still continued with this policy. Thus, the Court ruled against the DOJ.

Impact

Although the Court explicitly states this is not an immigration case, but instead a matter of separations of powers, this case has broader implications for the existence of sanctuary cities. Although there is no official definition for sanctuary cities or policies, "one subset of these [sanctuary] policies concerns a state’s or locality’s role in cooperating with federal authorities to enforce immigration law". This case was an example of this relationship between state and local power. This case restricted the executive’s authority to withhold federal funding from cities with sanctuary policies. The court also asserted that this ruling could have nationwide implications for sanctuary cities around the country. The opinion states that courts "Would be ill‐served here by requiring simultaneous litigation of this narrow question law in countless jurisdictions. Indicating that this ruling would likely be applied in other proceedings.