San Francisco V. Sessions Case Study

661 Words2 Pages

On February 28, 2018 Judge William H Orrick was presented a case of the City and County of San Francisco v. Sessions and State of CA v. Sessions. [http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions] The procedural posture was a motion to dismiss and the issue at hand was regarding immigration status verses enforcement.

The case was prompted by the Trump Administration’s new “Notice and Access Requirements” policy issued on July 25, 2017 requiring that sanctuary cities comply with the new order to received federal funding. In this case, the issue is between San Francisco’s eligibility for federal funding that it has historically received as a sanctuary city and the United States Department …show more content…

For a Federal law enforcement grant, the United States is authorized to require the sharing of information regarding criminal aliens being held. Any claim regarding the lack of information should be dismissed 2. Both the city of San Francisco and the state of California are not in compliance with Section 1373 and anything related to it should be dismissed. They ascertain that the immigration system is based on cooperation, The federal government turns over alien criminals to the local jurisdiction for prosecution of a local law, and the trade is that the federal government is informed when they are released so they can deport them. Therefore, the address and release date are a critical component to immigration status. He also stated that congress has the power to require information sharing between levels of …show more content…

He asserts that since this is a motion to dismiss, all that was needed today are facts to support a legal theory. Shearman claimed that there have been three other attempts where the defense has incorporated their own immigration regulation into legal statues: 1. Using a narrow administration statue to justify imposing any condition they want (notification access conditions). 2. Intend to inject into JAG Civil immigration enforcement 3. They take 1373 to transfer into a prohibition of jurisdiction restricting access to any personal info. http://www.uscourts.gov/cameras-courts/city-and-county-san-francisco-v-sessions-and-state-ca-v-sessions. Shearman, along with Aileen McGrath and Sarah Eisenberg, with the city of San Francisco, state that the city of San Francisco and the state of California have sufficient claims for relief and that they are in compliance with Section 1373. They further claim that the US Department of Justice is violating the separation of powers and seek declaratory and injunctive relief regarding funding through the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant

More about San Francisco V. Sessions Case Study

Open Document