logo
Orleans Sheriff's Office to stick with immigration policy in spite of new state law

Orleans Sheriff's Office to stick with immigration policy in spite of new state law

A controversial new state law that creates criminal penalties for local law enforcement officers who do not fully cooperate with federal immigration investigations is set to go into effect next month, putting the Orleans Parish Sheriff's Office in a legal quagmire.
For more than a decade, under a legal settlement in a federal civil rights case, the sheriff's office, which runs the New Orleans jail, has maintained a policy that places tight restrictions on how its employees can interact with federal immigration authorities.
But beginning on Aug. 1, under Act 399 of 2025, Orleans Parish deputies who follow that policy could be charged with committing a felony and face up to 10 years in prison. On the other hand, if the sheriff's office goes against the policy and obeys the new state law, it risks violating a longstanding federal court settlement.
Will Harrell, senior program monitor for Orleans Parish Sheriff Susan Hutson, said the agency already collaborates with U.S. immigration and Customs Enforcement in ways that do not violate that court order — also known as a consent decree. In a phone interview Wednesday, he said the agency is constitutionally obligated to stay the course.
'To the extent that the consent decree allows, we will cooperate with the (new) law. We already do,' Harrell said, noting that the settlement was signed and ordered in place by a federal judge. The U.S. Constitution gives federal law precedence over conflicting state law. 'We feel that the proper position is to maintain our compliance with the consent decree.'
The sheriff's office's immigration policy —– enacted in 2013 by then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman — prohibits Sheriff's Office deputies from initiating investigations into detainees' immigration statuses and blocks the office from honoring most 'detainer' requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
When ICE makes a detainer request for a jail inmate, local jailers are authorized to hold that person in jail for a short period past their release date, without a court order. But honoring such requests is voluntary under federal law. And in most cases — other than those where the subject of the request is facing particularly serious charges — it is prohibited by the sheriff's office's policy.
The policy was adopted as part of a federal court settlement in a 2011 civil rights case. At the time, the sheriff's office accepted detainer requests. But according to the suit, it went beyond what federal law allowed. Two Hispanic construction workers alleged in the suit that after being picked up on minor charges, they were illegally held in the city's jail at ICE's request for months beyond their release dates, well beyond the 48 hours federal law allows for immigration detainers.
When he adopted the policy, bringing the suit to a close, Gusman said it would allow his office to 'cooperate with ICE, provided specific procedures are followed' and that it was consistent with the provisions of another, much broader federal consent decree — meant to bring the long-troubled jail up to constitutional standards — that was adopted the same year.
But the state has recently sought to undo the policy by reopening the 2011 civil rights case that led to it.
In February, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill requested that the state become a party in the federal case that yielded the policy, in an effort to get the OPSO's immigration policy thrown out.
A federal judge has not yet decided if she will grant or deny the state's request to intervene in the case. Harrell said until the judge makes that call, the agency is bound by the original consent judgement.
'If the consent decree goes away then we have no choice but to cooperate with ICE in all cases of detainers and we will do that,' Harrell said
Landry, a conservative immigration hardliner and ally of President Donald Trump, and other top Republicans in the state have long sought to end so-called 'sanctuary' policies adopted by local governments, specifically targeting the sheriff's office's policy and a similar immigration policy adopted by the New Orleans Police Department in 2016 as part of its own long-running federal consent decree.
Last year, the Louisiana State Legislature, with Landry's support, passed Act 314, which prohibits government agencies from adopting or maintaining so-called 'sanctuary' policies, taking aim at the OPSO policy. When that law's passed, officials in Hutson's office said that the agency would continue to comply with the federal consent judgement.
The newly passed law, Act 399, takes things a step further. Act 314 is a civil law, enforceable by court order and carrying no jail time for violations. Act 399, on the other hand, is a criminal law. Under the law as written, sheriff's office employees who refuse ICE detainer requests face felony charges of malfeasance in office, which carries a potential 10-year sentence in prison.
The new law also adds to the crime of obstruction of justice, making it a misdemeanor to 'knowingly … hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts.' Under the change members of the public can face up to a year in jail. Immigrant and civil rights advocates have called the language in the law vague.
Bruce Reilly, deputy director of New Orleans criminal justice reform group Voice Of The Experienced, called the new law an example of government 'overreach.'
'I think the legal question may be, 'Can the state pass a law that forces people to be deputized by federal agencies?'' Reilly said.
___
This story was originally published by Verite News and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Florida man arrested after beating up golfer over slow play, deputies say
Florida man arrested after beating up golfer over slow play, deputies say

Yahoo

time11 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Florida man arrested after beating up golfer over slow play, deputies say

The Brief Jason Hughes is facing charges of aggravated battery causing bodily harm. Deputies said Hughes beat a man over the pace of play frustrations at a golf course. The man reported an orbital fracture and needed stitches to his cheek. KISSIMMEE, Fla. - A Florida man has been arrested after he allegedly beat up another man on a golf course after the man was playing too slow. What happened? What we know According to an arrest warrant, Jason Hughes attacked a golfer on a course in Kissimmee in June. Hughes told Osceola County Sheriff's Office (OCSO) deputies that he was upset with the pace of the man's play. The man reported he and Hughes exchanged words on the course. According to the warrant, the man was playing with a friend in front of Hughes. Hughes said he told the man more than once to hurry up. The warrant stated the boiling point for Hughes was the man talking to his friend while ahead on the green. CLICK TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX LOCAL APP The warrant said that Hughes then attacked the man unprovoked and punched him in the face repeatedly. The report said both men were separated by their playing partners. Hughes and his playing partner got in their golf cart and took it to their car in the lot. They then drove off before deputies arrived. Deputies said they found the man to be bleeding and bruised when they arrived. The man declined an ambulance to the hospital, but was driven by a friend instead. Officials tracked Hughes down with the help of the golf course. The club provided deputies with surveillance video of Hughes and gave them his name based on the credit card used to make the reservation. Hughes was booked into the Osceola County Jail on Thursday. He is being charged with aggravated battery causing bodily harm. Hughes made his first appearance on Friday, and a judge set his bond at $2,500. One condition of his bond is that he cannot play golf on any course open to the public. SIGN-UP FOR FOX 35'S BREAKING NEWS, DAILY NEWS NEWSLETTERS 'No reason to be fighting' What they're saying "If you linger around a few minutes and let that guy go through, by the time you play the hole, you won't be behind him anymore," one man said. "If you're out here trying to be aggressive, you absolutely picked the wrong game to choose," another man said. "Go do jiu-jitsu or kung fu." "There's no reason to be fighting out here," a third man said. "You could easily call the shop, and they'll come speak to the person, but it should never turn to violence." What's next Hughes' next court date was not immediately clear. The Source FOX 35 News reviewed the arrest warrant for Jason Hughes and looked at the case on the clerk of court's website. A FOX 35 News crew also went to the golf course where the incident happened and spoke with management. They declined to comment, but confirmed information in the arrest warrant. FOX 35 also spoke with golfers on the course for their thoughts on the case and pace of play disputes.

Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision
Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Judge blocks Trump's birthright citizenship restrictions in third ruling since high court decision

BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Friday blocked the Trump administration from ending birthright citizenship for the children of parents who are in the U.S. illegally, issuing the third court ruling blocking the birthright order nationwide since a key Supreme Court decision in June. U.S. District Judge Leo Sorokin, joining another district court as well as an appellate panel of judges, found that a nationwide injunction granted to more than a dozen states remains in force under an exception to the Supreme Court ruling. That decision restricted the power of lower-court judges to issue nationwide injunctions. The states have argued Trump's birthright citizenship order is blatantly unconstitutional and threatens millions of dollars for health insurance services that are contingent on citizenship status. The issue is expected to move quickly back to the nation's highest court. White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement the administration looked forward to "being vindicated on appeal.' New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin, who helped lead the lawsuit before Sorokin, said in a statement he was 'thrilled the district court again barred President Trump's flagrantly unconstitutional birthright citizenship order from taking effect anywhere.' "American-born babies are American, just as they have been at every other time in our Nation's history,' he added. "The President cannot change that legal rule with the stroke of a pen.' Lawyers for the government had argued Sorokin should narrow the reach of his earlier ruling granting a preliminary injunction, saying it should be 'tailored to the States' purported financial injuries.' Sorokin said a patchwork approach to the birthright order would not protect the states in part because a substantial number of people move between states. He also blasted the Trump administration, saying it had failed to explain how a narrower injunction would work. 'That is, they have never addressed what renders a proposal feasible or workable, how the defendant agencies might implement it without imposing material administrative or financial burdens on the plaintiffs, or how it squares with other relevant federal statutes,' the judge wrote. 'In fact, they have characterized such questions as irrelevant to the task the Court is now undertaking. The defendants' position in this regard defies both law and logic.' Sorokin acknowledged his order would not be the last word on birthright citizenship. Trump and his administration 'are entitled to pursue their interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and no doubt the Supreme Court will ultimately settle the question,' Sorokin wrote. 'But in the meantime, for purposes of this lawsuit at this juncture, the Executive Order is unconstitutional.' The administration has not yet appealed any of the recent court rulings. Trump's efforts to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally or temporarily will remain blocked unless and until the Supreme Court says otherwise. A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling earlier this month prohibiting Trump's executive order from taking effect nationwide in a new class-action lawsuit. U.S. District Judge Joseph LaPlante in New Hampshire had paused his own decision to allow for the Trump administration to appeal, but with no appeal filed, his order went into effect. On Wednesday, a San Francisco-based appeals court found the president's executive order unconstitutional and affirmed a lower court's nationwide block. A Maryland-based judge said last week that she would do the same if an appeals court signed off. The justices ruled last month that lower courts generally can't issue nationwide injunctions, but it didn't rule out other court orders that could have nationwide effects, including in class-action lawsuits and those brought by states. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the underlying citizenship order is constitutional. Plaintiffs in the Boston case earlier argued that the principle of birthright citizenship is 'enshrined in the Constitution,' and that Trump does not have the authority to issue the order, which they called a 'flagrantly unlawful attempt to strip hundreds of thousands of American-born children of their citizenship based on their parentage.' They also argue that Trump's order halting automatic citizenship for babies born to people in the U.S. illegally or temporarily would cost states funding they rely on to 'provide essential services' — from foster care to health care for low-income children, to 'early interventions for infants, toddlers, and students with disabilities.' At the heart of the lawsuits is the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which was ratified in 1868 after the Civil War and the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision. That decision found that Scott, an enslaved man, wasn't a citizen despite having lived in a state where slavery was outlawed. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States and therefore not entitled to citizenship. 'These courts are misinterpreting the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment,' Jackson, the White House spokeswoman, said in her statement. ____ Associated Press reporter Mark Sherman in Washington contributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store