ORLEANS PARISH, LA- A Louisiana court is expected to make a decision on the legality of the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office’s immigration policy that prohibits the office from honoring immigration detainers from federal immigration authorities, Verite News reports.
In arguments on April 28, opposing sides in the dispute appeared before the Louisiana Supreme Court, with civil rights attorneys defending the policy while attorneys for the state argued it should be abolished, claiming it violates a two-year-old state law targeting sanctuary cities.
Under Act 314 (2024), it prohibits local government bodies from adopting policies that limit the extent to which they can cooperate with federal immigration authorities and investigations, and demands local law enforcement comply with any immigration detainer requests, the outlet reported.
Detainer requests that are typically issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) authorize local detention facilities to hold those facing potential deportation in custody for up to 48 hours beyond their normal release dates, which facilitates their transfer to federal immigration authorities.
The 2024 law is in direct conflict with the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office policy, which was put in place over ten years ago, came about from a settlement in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by two construction workers.
Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo were arrested by the New Orleans Police Department on minor charges in 2009 and 2010, respectively.
Both received short prison sentences. The two argued that in response to a request from ICE, then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman held them inside his facility for months after their scheduled release days, which they claim is beyond what federal law authorizes for immigration detainers.
As a result of the lawsuit and in order to settle the claims, Gusman adopted an immigration policy that bars the sheriff's office from honoring immigration detainers, with the exception of cases where illegal aliens subject to the hold are charged with serious criminal charges, including first-degree murder, aggravated rape, or treason, among others.
The policy is still in effect, and prohibits sheriff’s office employees from investigating detainees’ immigration status, and places limits on how information about detainees can be shared with federal authorities.
Last year, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill sought intervener status, asking to be allowed to intervene as a named party and seeking a federal judge's order to dissolve the 2013 policy, saying it violates Act 314.
“Like every Louisiana law enforcement agency bound by Louisiana law, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office cannot obstruct or impede federal immigration authorities,” Murrill said in a statement this week. “We look forward to the Louisiana Supreme Court’s swift resolution of this case, which should put an end to the federal consent decree that has perpetuated the unlawful sanctuary policy in New Orleans.”
Current Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson didn’t respond to a request for comment, the outlet said.
Last year, federal Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld permitted the state to intervene in the case; however did not rule on a motion to dissolve the immigration policy.
In February, van Meerveld found that the case was centered on a matter of state, not federal, law, and referred the matter to the Louisiana Supreme Court to determine whether and how the new state law would affect the 13-year-old policy.
Attorneys for Cacho and Ocampo argued that three different questions applied to the case and should be considered by the justices. First, can Act 314 be applied to a pre-existing legal agreement? Does it conflict with local autonomy granted in the state constitution to cities, such as New Orleans, which operate under a “home rule” charter?
Finally, does the act violate a provision of the Louisiana Constitution prohibiting the state from imposing “unfunded mandates” on local agencies?
In 2013, the New Orleans Police Department was forced into a consent decree with the Obama Department of Justice. According to Alyssa Bernard-Yanni, who is representing Cacho and Ocampo, the Act “doesn’t apply to federal consent decrees.” That consent decree was dissolved last year.
Bernard-Yanni said that according to Sen. Blake Miguez, a Louisiana Republican, the Act was not meant to conflict with any federal court judgment.
“The sponsors…disclaimed any conflict under the respective consent decrees, Bernard-Yanni said.
Zachary Faircloth, who is representing the state, said the legislative record is not applicable in this case because the federal consent decree states that the policy should remain in place “absent a change in federal or state law applicable to immigration detainers.”
“We made the case over at the federal court,” Faircloth said. “The plain language in the [Cacho settlement] says a change in law as it relates to immigration detainers.”
Louisiana Supreme Court Chief Justice John Wiemer appeared to lean in the direction that the policy could remain in place, noting, “If you go to the record–it says that it really doesn’t affect the [consent] decree,” Wiemer said. “There’s numerous statements to that effect. In context, it seems like they were saying, ‘Look, it can co-exist.’”
Meanwhile, Justice Cade Cole, who seems inclined to agree with Faircloth’s statement, pressed Bernard-Yanni on the sheriff’s office falling under New Orleans’ home rule charter. The charter governs the city government, which is separate from the sheriff’s office. Also, language in the state Constitution exempts sheriffs from being part of such a charter.
Justice John Michael Guidry weighed in, acknowledging that while the sheriff’s office doesn’t fall under the home rule charter, it is funded by an entity that does, in this case, the city of New Orleans.
Addressing the issue of so-called “unfunded mandates,” Cole suggested that the federal government could pay jailers for the time they hold illegal aliens on detainers.
Bernard-Yanni pushed back on that suggestion, noting jailers hold illegal aliens on short-term detainers at their own expense. She said that the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office has no such agreement with the Department of Homeland Security.
Guidry asked if a change to state law can impact a local entity’s policy if it is enacted through a federal judge’s orders.
“Statute talks about local law enforcement cannot have a sanctuary policy,” Guidry told Faircloth. “And my question to you is, do you believe that they are operating under a locally implemented policy or under a federal consent decree?”
It is currently not clear when the Louisiana Supreme Court will issue a ruling on the sheriff’s immigration policy and Act 314.
Comments