county involvement in immigration enforcement - new … · county involvement in immigration...
TRANSCRIPT
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017
New Mexico Association of Counties
Hadi Sedigh – [email protected]
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 2 @NACoTweets
How are local govs. involved in immigration enforcement?
• Receive immigration detainers from the federal government/ICE
• Detainers traditionally flowed through a program called Secure Communities, was
replaced by the Priority Enforcement Program (PEP) in 2014
• Can enter into voluntary 287(g) agreements with the federal government under
which local officers are deputized to perform immigration enforcement functions,
which are otherwise federal authority. 64 agreements at peak.
287(g) agreements
Immigration detainers
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 3 @NACoTweets
Primer on 287(g) Agreements
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 4 @NACoTweets
287(g) agreements – federal-local enforcement partnership
• Established in 1996 under federal immigration legislation
• Permits local officers to perform immigration law enforcement functions
• Requires MOU between ICE Director and Sheriff or equivalent – VOLUNTARY!
• Local officers must be trained and must be supervised by ICE officials
• Four-week training, with one-week refresher every two years
• Currently 42 agreements in 17 states, none in New Mexico
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 5 @NACoTweets
287(g) agreements – authorities granted to local officers
• Interview individuals to ascertain their immigration status
• Check DHS databases for information on individuals
• Issue immigration detainers to hold individuals until ICE takes custody
• Initiate removal process by issuing “Notice to Appear”
• Transfer noncitizens into ICE custody
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 6 @NACoTweets
287(g) agreements – different models
• Task force model – deputized officers enforce immigration laws “in the field”
• Jail enforcement model – deputized officers enforce immigration laws in jail
setting after individuals have been detained on state or local charges
• Hybrid model – both of the above
• Task force model discontinued in 2012 – all existing 287(g) agreements are jail
enforcement
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 7 @NACoTweets
287(g) agreements – potential issues
• Expensive! ICE only covers cost of training for deputized local officials – even the
cost of travel, housing and meals during month-long mandatory training must be
covered by local law enforcement agency – can cost counties millions per year
• Bad for public safety? Some localities find that immigrant populations are less
likely to report crime or serve as witnesses to crime if local law enforcement is
involved in immigration enforcement – this likely applies more to “task force” model
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 8 @NACoTweets
287(g) agreements – misconceptions?
• The existence of a 287(g) agreement does not immunize local law enforcement
agencies against lawsuits related to warrantless immigration detainers – 287(g)
counties can still get sued for honoring warrantless detainers
• Signing a 287(g) agreement will almost certainly lead to unreimbursed local
expenditures related to immigration enforcement – “doing ICE’s job” at county’s
expense with little reimbursement
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 9 @NACoTweets
Primer on Immigration Detainers
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 10 @NACoTweets
Secure Communities / Priority Enforcement Program
FBI
DHSLocal Jail
1
2
3
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 11 @NACoTweets
History of Secure Communities/PEP
• Launched under George W. Bush Administration in 2008
• Obama Administration continued and expanded Secure Communities
• Hundreds of counties limited or ended participation
• Secure Communities was rolled back, Priority Enforcement Program introduced
• Instead of request to detain, request to notify
• Targeted individuals who had committed serious crimes
• Trump Administration resurrected Secure Communities in January, ended PEP
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 12 @NACoTweets
Why did some counties limit detainer cooperation?
Three commonly stated reasons:
• Costly lawsuits: federal courts ruled that counties who honor immigration detainers
without probable cause violate Fourth Amendment’s protections against warrantless
arrests. ICE will not indemnify counties.
• Bad for local law enforcement: “if the foreign born come to associate local officers
with immigration enforcement, they will hesitate to report crimes or to cooperate in
policing activates.”
• Detainer cooperation costs add up: counties received little reimbursement from
the federal government for the cost of incarcerating individuals they would have
otherwise released. CSAC found 7% rate.
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 13 @NACoTweets
Overview of Executive Order on “Sanctuary Jurisdictions”
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 14 @NACoTweets
• Sanctuary jurisdictions (SJs) must comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373
• SJs that willfully refuse to comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 are not eligible to receive Federal
grants, except as deemed necessary for law enforcement purposes by the Attorney
General or the Secretary of Homeland Security
• The Secretary has the authority to designate which jurisdictions are SJs
• “The Attorney General shall take appropriate enforcement action against any entity
that violates 8 U.S.C. 1373, or which has in effect a statute, policy, or practice that
prevents or hinders the enforcement of Federal law”
What does the executive order say?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 15 @NACoTweets
• What is a sanctuary jurisdiction?
• What is the scope of 8 U.S.C. 1373?
• Are cities and counties that don’t comply with warrantless ICE
detainers sanctuary jurisdictions?
• What federal funds does the Administration intend to take away?
What is uncertain from the Executive Order?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 16 @NACoTweets
• This term is not defined in the executive order
• Some possibilities:
• Jurisdictions that don’t comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373
• Jurisdictions that don’t ask for immigration status
• Jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE detainers
• Recently, focus has shifted to 8 U.S.C. 1373
What is a sanctuary jurisdiction?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 18 @NACoTweets
• “A prohibition against prohibitions”
What is the scope of 8 U.S.C. 1373?
• 8 U.S.C. 1373 prohibits state and local government entities from
preventing the maintaining or sharing of citizenship or immigration
status information with the federal government
• Does not require states and local governments to collect information
about immigration status – arguably does not require anything
• Second circuit case and an California Court of Appeals decision affirm this
interpretation
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 19 @NACoTweets
• So-called sanctuary jurisdictions claim that they comply with 8 U.S.C. 1373 because
they collect no information about immigration status – Santa Clara said this
• If they don’t collect the information – they cannot maintain or share it
• Some have argued that local policies that explicitly limit cooperation with ICE
violate 1373, even if they don’t relate specifically to immigration information
What is the scope of 8 U.S.C. 1373?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 20 @NACoTweets
• As it stands, 1373 is a narrow statute, but Congress can change that
• In the President’s Budget request, released in May, there is language that would
expand the definition of 1373 and apply it not just to sharing immigration
information, but also to collecting information and honoring ICE detainers
• Will Republicans in Congress take up the President’s suggestion? Will any
Democratic Senators lend their votes?
• Congressional expansion of 1373 could run into Constitutional problems
Will Congress redefine 1373?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 21 @NACoTweets
How Much Funding is Really at Stake?
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 22 @NACoTweets
Federal Funds on the Table
• Language from the executive order: sanctuary jurisdictions “are not
eligible to receive Federal grants, except as deemed necessary for law
enforcement purposes by the Attorney General or the Secretary”
• This is very broad language that invites the most worrisome
interpretation for counties
• DOJ has essentially refuted this plain interpretation
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 23 @NACoTweets
Grants Conditioned on Compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373
• DOJ says these grants are conditioned on compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373
• State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) (reimbursement
for incarcerating undocumented immigrants ) ($210 million FY16)
• Byrne JAG Grants (funds a range of law enforcement programs) ($84
million FY16)
• COPS Hiring Program (pays for officers to work on community
policing/crime prevention) ($187 million in FY16)
• Congress can expand this – Administration cannot
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 24 @NACoTweets
Legal Issues Raised by Executive Order
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 25 @NACoTweets
What are the Legal Issues with Requiring Compliance with ICE Detainers?
• Tenth Amendment – commandeering local officials
• Cannot use spending power to achieve the same means
• Fourth Amendment – warrantless detainer requests
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 26 @NACoTweets
Tenth Amendment Issues with ICE Detainers
• Courts have concluded that ICE Detainer requests are voluntary or else they
would violate the Tenth Amendment:
• “Under the Tenth Amendment, immigration officials may not order state
and local officials to imprison suspected aliens subject to removal at
the request of the federal government. Essentially, the federal
government cannot command the government agencies of the states to
imprison persons of interest to federal officials.” Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745
F.3d 634, 640-43 (3d Cir. 2014).
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 27 @NACoTweets
Limited Constitutionality of Withholding Funding
• Just as the federal government cannot require counties to execute federal policies
without violating the Tenth Amendment, withholding of funds to achieve the
same goal is also problematic, as held in two landmark SCOTUS cases
• South Dakota v. Dole: famous driving-age case; court held that funding can be
withheld only when it relates to the policy goal in question, and not to an extent
at which “pressure turns into compulsion”.
• NFIB v. Sebelius: recent ACA case; court held that withholding of funds to achieve
federal objectives cannot rise to the point where it becomes a “gun to the
head.” Justice Roberts opinion!
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 28 @NACoTweets
Fourth Amendment Issues with ICE Detainers
• ICE detainer requests generally do not come with a warrant, at least not one
signed by a judge – “administrative warrants” don’t county
• Therefore, counties may violate Fourth Amendment protections against
warrantless arrest by detaining individuals based only on an ICE detainer
• See Galazar v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014); Arizona v. United States, 132
S.Ct. 2492 (2012) (unauthorized presence in the United States is merely a civil
infraction; “it is not a crime.”)
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 29 @NACoTweets
Fourth Amendment Issues: Liability under Section 1983
• Municipalities can face civil liability for “blindly complying” with ICE
detainer requests without independent probable cause assessment.
• See Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas Cnty., (D. Or. 2014); Morales v. Chadbourne (D.R.I.
Jan. 24, 2017); Galazar v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634 (3d Cir. 2014).
• Damages are real. In one case for example, person was awarded $30,000
in damages plus $100,000 in attorneys fees/ costs for such a violation.
• ICE will not reimburse counties for these costs or indemnify against
damages, although some states are trying to set up a structure
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 30 @NACoTweets
Overview of Litigation Challenging the Executive Order
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 31 @NACoTweets
City/County Litigation – Who is Suing?
• San Francisco (Complaint/Preliminary Injunction)
• Santa Clara County (Complaint / PI)
• Massachusetts (Chelsea & Lawrence – Complaint only)
• City of Richmond, California (Complaint/PI)
• Seattle / Portland, Oregon (Complaint only)
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 32 @NACoTweets
What do the Lawsuits say on the Merits?
• We comply with 1373 / 1373 is unconstitutional
• Tenth Amendment / anti-commandeering
• Spending Clause Violation
• Fourth Amendment violation (ICE Detainers)
• Fifth Amendment / Due Process – notice and opportunity to be heard
• Unconstitutionally Vague
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 33 @NACoTweets
DOJ position re: California complaints
• DOJ lawyer argued EO doesn’t change the law, just seeking to enforce existing law.
Judge asked what was the point of the EO then? DOJ lawyer said bully pulpit
• SF argued that EO changed existing law by requiring ICE Detainer
compliance. DOJ lawyer said the EO doesn’t require ICE Detainer compliance.
DOJ still sees this as voluntary (statements made in open court seem to contradict
Sessions’ public remarks)
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 34 @NACoTweets
Court rules in favor of localities
• To the extent that the executive order attempts to expand the federal
government’s ability to withhold funding from “sanctuary jurisdictions,” it is
void pending litigation on merits
• But federal government retains existing ability to withhold funding –
applicable to, at most, Byrne JAG, COPS and SCAAP
• Leaving the executive order in place would create budgeting uncertainty for
local governments
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 35 @NACoTweets
Appeals to come…
• Legal battle is far from over – California case will be appealed, likely to
Supreme Court, and other courts across the country will weigh in
• Expect a lengthy timeline – could be years before case is resolved
• But the funding at issue is now a relatively small pot – the stakes are not
as high as was expected at outset of litigation
County Involvement in Immigration Enforcement
June 22, 2017Slide 36 @NACoTweets
Questions??
• Contact – [email protected]