Orleans Sheriff's Office to stick with immigration policy in spite of new state law
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mayor Evelyn George will not run for re-election
Jul. 27—Newton Mayor Evelyn George announced this week she will not be seeking another term, putting an end to her long tenure in city government. George was elected mayor in November 2023. The tight race was determined by just 13 votes, with George earning 911 votes and council member Randy Ervin earning 898 votes. Lonnie Appleby, who launched his second campaign for mayor after running as a write-in candidate in 2021, received 798 votes. Prior to her run for mayor, George served the Ward 2 seat on the Newton City Council from 2013 until 2017, and then the at-large seat from 2017 until 2023. At the conclusion of the July 21 city council meeting, George said she and her husband have been married 43 years and counting. She suggested she is not running for re-election this coming November in order to focus more of her time family while they are still healthy to do so. "As we were planning our family vacation to Smoky Mountains, we're like, 'There are so many other places we want to visit and see,'" George said. "And while we're still healthy and able to do that, we've decided that's going to be a priority. So, I will not be running for office this fall." George said the most important characteristics for anyone wanting to serve as mayor are: open-mindedness, a positive attitude and a willingness to listen to people, especially those that aren't of the same background. She also said it helps to be someone who strives to be a lifelong learner. "If someone comes in thinking they have all the answers and they know it, they'll soon find out that city government is quite different than anything else," she said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton
On Saturday, Donald Trump repeated false claims that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to endorse Kamala Harris on the campaign trail in October of last year. The Truth Social post comes as the president faces scrutiny from his own base over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Taking to his social media platform yesterday, the GOP leader wrote, 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' More from Deadline Beyoncé Reunites Destiny's Child For Final 'Cowboy Carter' Tour Stop In Vegas Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Donald Trump Denies Being Briefed That His Name Appeared In Jeffrey Epstein Files, Despite Wall Street Journal Report That He Was Informed Trump is referring to the 35-time Grammy-winning artist's appearance at a rally in Houston, where the singer took to the stage to endorse the vice president and call for unity. 'It's time to sing a new song, a song that began 248 years ago. The old notes of downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem. Our moment right now — it's time for America to sing a new song. Our voices sing a chorus of unity. They sing a song of dignity and opportunity,' she said to the crowd. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment made from the Democratic presidential candidate's organization to Beyoncé's production company, per CNN, with 'campaign event production' listed as the reasoning for the expenditure. Last year, senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign Adrienne Elrod told Deadline that the campaign did not pay any celebrity endorsers but was required by campaign finance law to cover costs associated with holding such events, per Federal Election Commission rules. This accounts for the $1 million the Harris campaign spent on Oprah's Harpo Productions, as the famed TV personality endorsed her at a Michigan-held 'Unite for America' event in September 2024. The baseless allegation was fact-checked by websites and PolitiFact last year, though Trump repeated his sentiments about Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton back in February. Trump has also previously harped on the matter in a post made back in May, where he named other influential Harris endorsers like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, calling for a 'major investigation.' There's also no evidence to suggest such expenses were incorrectly categorized, and though Trump maintained payment for endorsement is illegal, there's actually no FEC law that prohibits such campaigns for paying for endorsements, though they must disclose such expenditures. Best of Deadline Celebs Supporting Zohran Mamdani In New York's Mayoral Race: From Ramy Youssef To Cynthia Nixon The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election
Forbes
14 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.
