Amy Howe

Mar 5 2021

Court dismisses “sanctuary cities” petitions

The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed, at the request of the parties involved, a trio of cases arising from the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold law-enforcement funding from so-called “sanctuary” states and cities – state and local governments that do not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Although Thursday’s filings at the Supreme Court contained few details, the dismissal appeared to signal yet another reversal of a Trump-era immigration policy by the Biden administration.

The Department of Justice filed one petition, Wilkinson v. City and County of San Francisco, last year, asking the justices to review a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the DOJ did not have the authority to impose conditions on the funds. Both the state of New York and New York City filed their own petitions, New York v. Department of Justice and City of New York v. Department of Justice, asking the Supreme Court to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit upholding the conditions.

In a letter to the Supreme Court on Jan. 27, Acting Attorney General Robert Wilkinson suggested that the court should delay acting on the DOJ’s petition until the Biden administration could determine what position it would take on the issues in the case. The justices then rescheduled the petitions twice, declining to consider them at their Feb. 19 and Feb. 26 conferences, before scheduling them for their March 5 conference.

The DOJ and the challengers on Thursday asked Scott Harris, the clerk of the court, to dismiss the case. The request came under Supreme Court Rule 46.1, which instructs the clerk to dismiss a case – without needing the justices’ permission – when all sides agree. Harris quickly granted the requests.

This post is also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court rules for deaf student in education-law case
  • Parties disagree over court’s power to reach decision in election law case
  • Justices throw out lower-court ruling allowing state court clerk to be sued in parental notification abortion case
  • Justices decline to halt execution of Texas man with intellectual disability claim
  • Justices take up case on federal admiralty law, seek government’s views on two pending petitions
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies