CLOSE X
RSS Feed LinkedIn Instagram Twitter Facebook
Search:
FMG Law Blog Line

Posts Tagged ‘President’

“Sanctuary Cities” Get a Reprieve For Now

Posted on: January 10th, 2019

By: Pamela Everett

As many city, county and state attorneys are aware, in 2017 the US. Department of Justice (DOJ) added three conditions to the application process for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (“Byrne JAG”) program in an effort to eliminate so called sanctuary cities. The Byrne JAG program originated from the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968,  which created grants to assist the law enforcement efforts of state and local authorities. Under the Byrne JAG program, states and localities may apply for funds to support criminal justice programs in a variety of categories, including law enforcement, prosecution, crime prevention, corrections, drug treatment, technology, victim and witness services, and mental health.

The first condition, called the “Notice Condition” requires grantees, upon request, to give advance notice to the Department of Homeland Security of the scheduled release date and time of aliens housed in state or local correctional facilities. The second condition, called the “Access Condition,” requires grantees to give federal agents access to aliens in state or local correctional facilities in order to question them about their immigration status. The third condition, called the “Compliance Condition” requires grantees to certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits states and localities from restricting their officials from communicating with immigration authorities regarding anyone’s citizenship or immigration status. Grantees are also required to monitor any subgrantees’ compliance with the three conditions, and to notify DOJ if they become aware of credible evidence of a violation of the Compliance Condition. Additionally, all grantees must certify their compliance with the three conditions, which carries the risk of criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and administrative remedies. The DOJ also requires the jurisdictions’’ legal counsel to certify compliance with the conditions.

A number of jurisdictions have sued the DOJ and the U. S. Attorney General regarding these new conditions and sought a nationwide injunction; however, so far, none have  been successful in obtaining a nationwide injunction.  Recently a partial win was handed to the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Washington, and Commonwealths of Massachusetts and Virginia and the City of New York. The States and the City challenged the imposition of the three conditions on five bases: (1) the conditions violates the separation of powers, (2) the conditions were ultra vires under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), (3) the conditions were not in accordance with law under the APA, (4) the conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA, and (5) § 1373 violated the Tenth Amendment’s prohibition on commandeering.  This case challenged the authority of the Executive Branch of the federal government to compel states to adopt its preferred immigration policies by imposing conditions on congressionally authorized funding to which the states are otherwise entitled.

While the court held that the plaintiffs did not make a sufficient showing of nationwide impact to demonstrate that a nationwide injunction was necessary to provide relief to them, it did find as follows: (1) The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were ultra vires and not in accordance with law under the APA. (2) 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a)–(b), insofar as it applies to states and localities, is facially unconstitutional under the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. (3)  The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions violated the constitutional separation of powers. (4)The Notice, Access, and Compliance Conditions were arbitrary and capricious under the APA.  (5) The DOJ was mandated to reissue the States’ FY 2017 Byrne JAG award documents without the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions, and upon acceptance to disburse those awards as they would in the ordinary course without regard to those conditions.  Additionally, the DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

The DOJ was prohibited from imposing or enforcing the Notice, Access, or Compliance Conditions for FY 2017 Byrne JAG funding for the States, the City, or any of their agencies or political subdivisions.

There are several other cases pending, including one filed by the City of San Francisco, seeking the issuance of a nationwide injunction to prohibit the enforcement of the new conditions. Stay tuned for more developments in this area.

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Pamela Everett at [email protected].

 

Related litigation: City of Chicago v. Sessions, 264 F. Supp. 3d 933 (N.D. Ill. 2017); affd. appeal, City of Chicago v. Sessions, 888 F.3d 272 (7th Cir. 2018), but later stayed the nationwide scope of the injunction pending en banc review. Conference City of Evanston v. Sessions, No. 18 Civ. 4853, slip op. at 11 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2018) City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017); City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018)(currently on appeal); California ex rel. Becerra v. Sessions, 284 F. Supp. 3d 1015 (N.D. Cal. 2018)

 

How Can The Trump-Cohen Tape Be Public?

Posted on: July 31st, 2018

By: Greg Fayard

A lawyer and client talk. The lawyer records the conversation. The recording is made public. How can this be?

That’s what happened to then candidate Donald Trump and his New York lawyer Michael Cohen. The conversation occurred in September 2016. Trump was not aware Cohen recorded the discussion. The recording is a few minutes long and encompasses several topics, including reference to a possible payment to a Playboy model with whom Trump allegedly had an affair in 2006, although this is never expressly discussed. At one point a cash or check payment is referenced. The two speak in a verbal shorthand.

The FBI, as part of an investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, confiscated the recording in April 2018 (see earlier blog discussing this here) while investigating attorney Cohen. The recording was made public in July 2018, but it is unclear by whom.

The conversation between Cohen and Trump is ordinarily protected by the attorney-client privilege, although it is clear other people were around Trump and Cohen, calling into question whether Trump waived the privilege by speaking openly to his lawyer in front of others. Nevertheless, a special master, working under United States District Judge Kimba Wood in New York determined the tape to be privileged. Trump, as Cohen’s client, “owns” the privilege.

However, the President’s legal team “waived” the attorney-client privilege, permitting the tape’s disclosure. The question is why? Four possible reasons come to mind:

  1. The tape had already been leaked, leaving the President no other viable option but to waive the privilege;
  2. Waiving the privilege permits the President’s advisors to discuss the tape openly;
  3. Discussing the tape without officially waiving the privilege might open the door to a broader waiver of communications between Cohen and Trump; and/or
  4. If Trump’s team asserted the privilege over the tape, the government could try to overcome the privilege by asserting the “crime/fraud exception.” Simply put, a client’s communication to an attorney cannot be privileged if the communication was made with the intention of committing or covering up a crime or fraud.

At worst, if a payment to the model was actually made (not yet confirmed), such a payment might have to be reported under federal campaign finance law. The failure to do so could be a campaign finance violation. Trump allies, however, would argue any such payment was not campaign-related, but a common occurrence for a celebrity dealing with the tabloids. In any event, failing to report a campaign-related payment is not a ordinarily a crime.

Lastly, why would an attorney record his privileged conversations with a client? Only attorney Cohen can answer that (and he has not). It could be innocuous—instead of taking notes, he recorded conversations. But not advising Trump of the recording is problematic. Nevertheless, under New York law, one party recording another party without his consent is legal. (N.Y. Penal Law §§ 250.00, 250.05.)  If Cohen, however, leaked the tape when it was still considered privileged, and before Trump waived the privilege, he could face discipline from the State Bar of New York for breaching an attorney’s duty of confidentiality. (New York Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6.)  Regardless, the President was certainly not pleased with Cohen’s secret recording:

If you have any questions or would like more information, please contact Greg Fayard at [email protected].