ILNews

ACLU of Indiana files suit against immigration legislation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday in the U.S. District Court's Southern District of Indiana, challenging the wording of a new Indiana law designed to curb illegal immigration.

The class-action complaint and challenge to constitutionality of state statute calls into question the legality of two portions of Senate Enrolled Act 590.

The ACLU challenges the act’s revision to Indiana Code Section 35-33-1-1 that states a police officer may arrest a person who: has been issued a removal order by an immigration court; has been issued a detainer or notice of action by the United States Department of Homeland Security; or, probable cause exists that the person has been indicted for or convicted of one or more aggravated felonies (as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)).

Earlier this month, Angela Adams, an attorney for Lewis & Kappes who assisted in filing the complaint, said a notice of action or detainer is not an arrest warrant.

The complaint reads: “Insofar as SEA 590 authorizes state and local law enforcement officers to arrest persons without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of any unlawful conduct, much less criminal activity, it violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable seizures.”

The suit also challenges a sentence that says anyone who knowingly accepts consular identification as a valid ID commits a Class C infraction, a Class B infraction for a second offense, and a Class A infraction for any subsequent offense.

Adams pointed out that consular ID’s are issued by an immigrant’s birth country, and that immigrants may rely on those ID’s as proof of age or identity in important transactions like bank business.  

“SEA 590’s prohibition on consular identification cards is directly preempted by federal regulations that authorize banks to accept foreign government-issued photo identification for verifying the identity of account holders,” the complaint states.

The suit says that the plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of two classes of similarly situated persons against the defendants, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The individuals named as plaintiffs include two Mexican citizens – one who lives in Marion County and has been a lawful permanent resident of the United States since 2001, and one who lives in Johnson County. Also named as a plaintiff is a citizen of Nigeria who had a removal order issued against her in 2006. She is currently free on an order of supervision, reporting to the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement every six months. Under the new law, her status would make her subject to arrest.

The first class is comprised of “all persons in Marion and Johnson Counties, Indiana, or who will be in Marion and Johnson Counties, Indiana, who are or will be subject to warrantless arrest pursuant to Section 19 of SEA 590 based on a determination that: a removal order issued against them by an immigration court;  have, or will have, a detainer or notice of action issued for or against them by the United States Department of Homeland Security; or they have been, or will be, indicted for or convicted of one (1) or more aggravated felonies, as defined in 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43).”

The second class (“Class B”) is defined as “all persons in Marion and Johnson Counties, Indiana, or who will be in Marion and Johnson Counties, Indiana, who possess, or will posses, a valid consular identification card and are using it, or will use it, for non-fraudulent identification purposes.”

Defendants in the complaint are: the city of Indianapolis, the Marion and Johnson County prosecutors, the city of Franklin, and the Johnson County sheriff.

Other attorneys who have signed on to the case come from the national ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project (New York and San Francisco offices), and the National Immigration Law Center.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Fine the Politicians who made this law -- duh
    This is exactly what happens when inept politicians run their mouth without engaging their brains or knowledge of the law. What a waste of time at taxpayers expense. These politicians should be fined the same amount they have established for wasting taxpayers money and getting down to business of the work they were to perform

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT