ILNews

Groups file suits against new law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The National Immigration Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, and the national ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project filed a class action lawsuit May 25 challenging the wording of a new Indiana law designed to curb illegal immigration. Lewis & Kappes attorney Angela Adams is among the attorneys representing the plaintiffs who say the law – Senate Enrolled Act 590 – will allow police to wrongly arrest people and will penalize immigrants for using their consular identification cards.

Since SEA 590 was first introduced in the Indiana Legislature, people around the country have drawn comparisons between it and the Arizona law that was introduced in 2010 as Senate Bill 1070 – which was widely considered to be the nation’s strictest immigration bill. Indiana’s bill was revised during the legislative session to remove language authorizing police to arrest people based on their appearance.

In the ACLU complaint, Buquer et. al. v City of Indianapolis et. al. No. 1:2011-CV-00708, the plaintiffs contend that a notice of action or detainer is not grounds for arrest.

In a statement released May 25, Andre Segura, staff attorney for the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said, “Indiana has unwisely chosen to follow down Arizona’s unconstitutional path. This law marginalizes entire communities by criminalizing commonly accepted forms of identification. The law also undermines our most cherished constitutional safeguards by putting Indiana residents at risk of unlawful warrantless arrests without any suspicion of wrongdoing, much less criminal activity.”

On June 2, the NILC and ACLU also filed suit against a new Georgia immigration law that outlaws the use of consular identification cards.

Rehearing: "Immigration bill could bring Indiana into the national spotlight" IL May 11 - 24, 2011

ADVERTISEMENT

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT