SALEM, OR – Oregon’s Attorney General has asked a federal court to dismiss the ongoing lawsuit filed by Marion County in the state, which said county has sought the court’s clarification on how to navigate conflicting state and federal law surrounding sanctuary policies criminalizing certain collaborative efforts with immigration authorities.
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Marion County filed a federal lawsuit this past August which pointed to the inconsistencies present between Oregon’s sanctuary laws while attempting to abide by the likes of federal subpoenas.
After county officials received a federal subpoena regarding the parole records of four suspected illegal immigrants, the aforesaid officials harbored concerns that complying with the subpoena would place them squarely in violation of Oregon law which prohibits “a public body” from sharing various personal details with immigration authorities “for the purpose of enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
Subpoena powers aside, the lawsuit filed by the county also highlighted, “Federal Immigration Law authorizes states and localities to cooperate with the federal government in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” meaning even a willingness at the county level to cooperate without legal demands from the federal government places Marion County in Oregon’s legal crosshairs.
As Marion County Chair Danielle Bethell noted in a statement this past August, “Obviously, we want to keep dangerous people out of our community and off of our streets. We also want to make sure the state won’t come after our community and sue us if we provide the requested records to the federal administration.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who has previously come out in defense of the state’s sanctuary laws in a September statement reading, “My office will defend Oregon’s statutes vigorously if they are challenged,” has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 20th, asserting that no guidance is needed in the navigation of Oregon and federal law.
Citing a myriad of existing case law in an attempt to support the motion to dismiss, AG Rayfield’s filing claims Marion County shouldn’t be confused when navigating Oregon’s sanctuary laws because “when ICE serves state or local officials with an administrative subpoena for immigration information, the next step is clear: The recipient must decline to respond unless and until a judge issues a court order enforcing the subpoena.”
AG Rayfield issued a press release in tandem with the court filing on October 20th, summarizing the arguments made in his motion while also appealing to a sort of argumentum ad antiquitatem, citing how Oregon’s sanctuary laws have been on the books “for nearly four decades” without counties taking the state to court.
“Oregon law is straightforward. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled that there is no conflict between our sanctuary law and federal law,” AG Rayfield noted, adding, “Public bodies can’t use state resources to help enforce federal immigration law. That’s been the law for nearly four decades, and it is a law that has coexisted peacefully under seven presidential administrations. There’s nothing confusing about that.”
While the filed motion to dismiss relies heavily on stare decisis established by the Ninth Circuit, if said case were dismissed but then appealed to the higher courts, SCOTUS does harbor the ability to disregard precedent if past rulings “are unworkable or are badly reasoned,” as cited in the 1996 case of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida.
As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Marion County filed a federal lawsuit this past August which pointed to the inconsistencies present between Oregon’s sanctuary laws while attempting to abide by the likes of federal subpoenas.
After county officials received a federal subpoena regarding the parole records of four suspected illegal immigrants, the aforesaid officials harbored concerns that complying with the subpoena would place them squarely in violation of Oregon law which prohibits “a public body” from sharing various personal details with immigration authorities “for the purpose of enforcement of federal immigration laws.”
Subpoena powers aside, the lawsuit filed by the county also highlighted, “Federal Immigration Law authorizes states and localities to cooperate with the federal government in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” meaning even a willingness at the county level to cooperate without legal demands from the federal government places Marion County in Oregon’s legal crosshairs.
As Marion County Chair Danielle Bethell noted in a statement this past August, “Obviously, we want to keep dangerous people out of our community and off of our streets. We also want to make sure the state won’t come after our community and sue us if we provide the requested records to the federal administration.”
Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, who has previously come out in defense of the state’s sanctuary laws in a September statement reading, “My office will defend Oregon’s statutes vigorously if they are challenged,” has filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on October 20th, asserting that no guidance is needed in the navigation of Oregon and federal law.
Citing a myriad of existing case law in an attempt to support the motion to dismiss, AG Rayfield’s filing claims Marion County shouldn’t be confused when navigating Oregon’s sanctuary laws because “when ICE serves state or local officials with an administrative subpoena for immigration information, the next step is clear: The recipient must decline to respond unless and until a judge issues a court order enforcing the subpoena.”
AG Rayfield issued a press release in tandem with the court filing on October 20th, summarizing the arguments made in his motion while also appealing to a sort of argumentum ad antiquitatem, citing how Oregon’s sanctuary laws have been on the books “for nearly four decades” without counties taking the state to court.
“Oregon law is straightforward. The Ninth Circuit has already ruled that there is no conflict between our sanctuary law and federal law,” AG Rayfield noted, adding, “Public bodies can’t use state resources to help enforce federal immigration law. That’s been the law for nearly four decades, and it is a law that has coexisted peacefully under seven presidential administrations. There’s nothing confusing about that.”
While the filed motion to dismiss relies heavily on stare decisis established by the Ninth Circuit, if said case were dismissed but then appealed to the higher courts, SCOTUS does harbor the ability to disregard precedent if past rulings “are unworkable or are badly reasoned,” as cited in the 1996 case of Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments