Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program

Last updated

The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, or JAG originates out of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2005. The program is named for New York City police officer Edward Byrne who was killed in the line of duty in 1988 while protecting an immigrant witness who agreed to testify against drug dealers. The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (EBMGP) was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Acts of 1986 and 1988, allocating approximately $200 million dollars to municipalities both local and state. The allocated money was used in efforts to reduce drug-crimes and support drug control, which was of national concern at the time. [1] The JAG program is administered by the Office of Justice Programs's Bureau of Justice Assistance, and provides federal criminal justice funding to state, local and tribal jurisdictions. [2] The funding is intended for a variety of areas, such as personnel, training, equipment and supplies. In Fiscal Year 2019, $263.8 million in funding was available by the JAG Program. [3] The Recovery Act of 2009 appropriated $2 billion in funding to the JAG program. [4]

The United States Department of Justice announced in late July 2017 that more than two hundred sanctuary cities will be disqualified from receiving Byrne grants if their noncompliance with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues. [5] Several cities challenged the change in courts, and as of November 2018, cases in District Courts of New York, Pennsylvania, California and Illinois have all found for the cities, with the Seventh Circuit Appeals Court affirming the Illinois district ruling. [6] [7] In February 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit overturned the New York ruling, making it possible the case will go to the Supreme Court. [8]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Illegal immigration to the United States</span> Immigration to the United States in violation of US law

Foreign nationals (aliens) can violate US immigration laws by entering the United States unlawfully or lawfully entering but then remaining after the expiration of their visas, parole, or temporary protected status. Illegal immigration has been a matter of intense debate in the United States since the 1980s.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bureau of Justice Assistance</span>

The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, within the United States Department of Justice. BJA provides leadership and assistance to local criminal justice programs that improve and reinforce the nation's criminal justice system.

Local Law Enforcement Block Grants (LLEBG) were federal assistance block grant programs provided by the United States Department of Justice to local governments, which would then use the funds to support public safety or crime prevention efforts. It was part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance office.

A sanctuary city is a municipality that limits or denies its cooperation with the national government in enforcing immigration law.

Ilana Kara Diamond Rovner is a United States circuit judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Rovner was the first woman appointed to the Seventh Circuit. She was previously a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</span> Obama administration immigration policy

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, colloquially referred to as DACA, is a United States immigration policy. It allows some individuals who, on June 15, 2012, were physically present in the United States with no lawful immigration status after having entered the country as children at least five years earlier, to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and to be eligible for an employment authorization document.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deportation and removal from the United States</span> American legal procedure

Deportation and removal from the United States occurs when the U.S. government orders a person to leave the country. In fiscal year 2014, Immigration and Customs Enforcement conducted 315,943 removals. Criteria for deportations are set out in 8 U.S.C. § 1227.

Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), sometimes called Deferred Action for Parental Accountability, was a planned United States immigration policy to grant deferred action status to certain undocumented immigrants who have lived in the United States since 2010 and have children who are either American citizens or lawful permanent residents. It was prevented from going into effect. Deferred action would not be legal status but would come with a three-year renewable work permit and exemption from deportation. DAPA was a presidential executive action, not a law passed by Congress.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy of Donald Trump</span> Policies regarding immigration of the Trump administration

Immigration policy, including illegal immigration to the United States, was a signature issue of former U.S. president Donald Trump's presidential campaign, and his proposed reforms and remarks about this issue generated much publicity. Trump has repeatedly said that illegal immigrants are criminals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legal challenges to the Trump travel ban</span> Legal disputes

Executive Order 13769 was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 27, 2017, and quickly became the subject of legal challenges in the federal courts of the United States. The order sought to restrict travel from seven Muslim majority countries: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. The plaintiffs challenging the order argued that it contravened the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or both. On March 16, 2017, Executive Order 13769 was superseded by Executive Order 13780, which took legal objections into account and removed Iraq from affected countries. Then on September 24, 2017, Executive Order 13780 was superseded by Presidential Proclamation 9645 which is aimed at more permanently establishing travel restrictions on those countries except Sudan, while adding North Korea and Venezuela which had not previously been included.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13768</span> Executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump

Executive Order 13768 titled Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States was signed by U.S. President Donald Trump on January 25, 2017. The order stated that "sanctuary jurisdictions" including sanctuary cities that refused to comply with immigration enforcement measures would not be "eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes" by the U.S. Attorney General or Secretary of Homeland Security.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Executive Order 13780</span> 2017 executive order by U.S. President Trump placing travel restrictions on several countries

Executive Order 13780, titled Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States, was an executive order signed by United States President Donald Trump on March 6, 2017. It placed a 90-day restriction on entry to the U.S. by nationals of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen, and barred entry for all refugees who did not possess either a visa or valid travel documents for 120 days. This executive order—sometimes called "Travel Ban 2.0"—revoked and replaced Executive Order 13769 issued on January 27, 2017.

<i>Intl Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump</i>

International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 883 F. 3d 233, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sitting en banc, upholding an injunction against enforcement of Proclamation No. 9645, titled "Enhancing Vetting Capabilities and Processes for Detecting Attempted Entry Into the United States by Terrorists or Other Public-Safety Threats", a presidential proclamation signed by President Donald Trump on September 24, 2017. The proclamation indefinitely suspends the entry into the U.S. of some or all immigrant and non-immigrant travelers from eight countries. It is a successor to Executive Order 13769, entitled "Protection of the Nation from Terrorist Entry into the United States," which were also enjoined by the District Court of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit in a case decided in 2017 by the same name of International Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, 857 F.3d 554.

Trump v. Hawaii, No. 17-965, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving Presidential Proclamation 9645 signed by President Donald Trump, which restricted travel into the United States by people from several nations, or by refugees without valid travel documents. Hawaii and several other states and groups challenged the Proclamation and two predecessor executive orders also issued by Trump on statutory and constitutional grounds. Citing a variety of statements by Trump and administration officials, they argued that the proclamation and its predecessor orders were motivated by anti-Muslim animus.

<i>Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California</i> 2020 United States Supreme Court case

Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held by a 5–4 vote that a 2017 U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) order to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) immigration program was "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and reversed the order.

Wolf v. Vidal, 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case that was filed to challenge the Trump Administration's rescission of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Plaintiffs in the case are DACA recipients who argue that the rescission decision is unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act and the Fifth Amendment. On February 13, 2018, Judge Garaufis in the Eastern District of New York addressed the question of whether the government offered a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program. The court found that Defendants did not provide a legally adequate reason for ending the DACA program and that the decision to end DACA was arbitrary and capricious. Defendants have appealed the decision to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

<i>United States v. Joseph</i> US prosecution of a judge for allegedly helping an undocumented immigrant evade detention

United States v. Shelley M. Richmond Joseph and Wesley MacGregor (2019) was the federal criminal prosecution of a Massachusetts state court judge (Joseph) and court officer (MacGregor) for helping a state court defendant evade federal immigration authorities by allowing him to leave a court hearing through a rear door of the courthouse. Both were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice, aiding and abetting obstruction of justice, and aiding and abetting obstruction of a federal proceeding; MacGregor was also charged with perjury during grand jury proceedings. Joseph faced 20 years in prison; MacGregor, 30 years. Both could have been fined $250,000. On September 22, 2022, the case concluded with an announcement by federal prosecutors that the obstruction charges against both Joseph and MacGregor would be dismissed and that prosecution of the perjury charge against MacGregor would be deferred. As part of the resolution, Joseph agreed to submit to disciplinary proceedings before the Massachusetts Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Biden v. Sierra Club was a United States Supreme Court case involving the appropriation of funds used to expand the Mexico–United States barrier under the presidency of Donald Trump, colloquially known as the Trump wall. Congress did not grant direct appropriations to fund expansion of the wall, leading Trump to sign the National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States in February 2019 which, citing his powers under the National Emergency Act, took approximately US$8 billion of funds appropriated to military spending towards construction of the wall. Numerous states and non-governmental organizations filed suit shortly after the order, resulting in a Ninth Circuit ruling that deemed the transfer of funds inappropriate under the Appropriations Clause and leading to the Supreme Court challenge.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immigration policy in Texas</span>

The state of Texas has a long history of immigration and immigration policy. The region that is now Texas was originally home to several Native American tribes. The first European immigrants arrived in the 1600s when the land was colonized by the French and the Spanish. Financial incentives created by the Mexican government brought many immigrants to Mexican Texas in the 1820s, mostly from slaveholding areas in the southern United States. This continued as significant illegal immigration to Mexico after 1830, when American migrants were banned.

Carson v. Makin, 596 U.S. 767 (2022), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case related to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Free Exercise Clause. It was a follow-up to Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue.

References

  1. ↑ Cox, Robynn; Cunningham, Jamein P. (January 2021). "FINANCING THE WAR ON DRUGS: THE IMPACT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT GRANTS ON RACIAL DISPARITIES IN DRUG ARRESTS". Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 40 (1): 191–224. doi:10.1002/pam.22277. ISSN   0276-8739.
  2. ↑ "Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Fact Sheet" (PDF). 1 May 2005. Retrieved 18 May 2015.
  3. ↑ "Edward Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Fact Sheet" (PDF). 18 May 2020. Retrieved 4 Dec 2020.
  4. ↑ "Review of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program" (PDF). 1 Dec 2009. Retrieved 20 May 2015.
  5. ↑ https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/984346/download
  6. ↑ Pierson, Brendan (November 30, 2018). "N.Y. judge strikes down policy tying funds to immigration compliance". Reuters . Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  7. ↑ Seidel, Jon; Spielman, Fran (April 19, 2018). "Court upholds ruling, blocks Trump administration in sanctuary cities case". Chicago Sun-Times . Retrieved November 30, 2018.
  8. ↑ Van Voris, Bob; Dolmetsch, Chris (26 February 2020). "Trump Can Block DOJ Grants to Sanctuary Cities, Court Rules". Bloomberg.com. Retrieved 26 February 2020.


This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.