ILNews

Judge: State can’t enforce 2 parts of immigration law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

U.S. Judge Sarah Evans Barker has ruled that the state can’t enforce two sections of the Indiana law dealing with immigration: one dealing with arrests and one dealing with the use of consular identification cards for identification.

Three immigrants living in central Indiana sued to stop enforcement of two provisions of Senate Enrolled Act 590 passed in 2011. The new law amended statute to allow state and local law enforcement officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person when the officer has a removal order issued for the person by an immigration court, a detainer, or notice of action issued for the person by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, or has probable cause to believe the person has been indicted for or convicted of one or more aggravated felonies – Section 20 of the law. The law also creates a new infraction for any person other than a police officer who knowingly or intentionally offers or accepts a consular identification card as a valid form of ID for any purpose – Section 18 of the law.

Barker originally granted a preliminary injunction in Ingrid Buquer, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., No. 1:11-CV-708, on enforcement of these two provisions in June 2011 before the law had taken effect. On Thursday, she made the injunction permanent, writing “our view of the appropriate final determination of these issues remains unchanged.”

She pointed out that the court has modified and extended that preliminary analysis only to the extent necessitated by recent judicial decisions – including Arizona v. United States, 132 S.C. 2492 (2012).  

“Federal immigration law consists of a veritable tapestry of individual regulatory and policy threads woven together to create a balanced whole. In order to maintain that balance throughout the country, federal law vests discretion at the federal level regarding whether and which persons without full, lawful alien status should be arrested,” Barker wrote. “Section 20 impermissibly alters that balance by authorizing the arrest for immigration matters of individuals only within the boundaries of the State of Indiana whom, in many cases, the federal government does not seek or intend to be detained. As such, Section 20 significantly disrupts and interferes with federal discretion relating to immigration enforcement and the appropriate, preferred methods for carrying out those enforcement responsibilities.”

She noted in Thursday’s 43-page order that the section also runs afoul of the Fourth Amendment and is unconstitutional on those grounds.

Regarding Section 18’s preemption by federal law, Barker wrote, “These sweeping regulations, targeted solely at foreign government-issued identification that consulates are entitled to issue, and which restrict the manner in which foreign citizens may travel, live, and trade in the United States, have a direct effect on our nation’s interactions with foreign nations. Such interactions cannot be dictated or restricted by individual states.”

She also held that Section 18 is not rationally related to the state government interest and violates substantive due process.

Barker dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims against the city of Indianapolis without prejudice because they are unripe at this time.

The lawsuit was brought by the ACLU of Indiana. In a statement released Friday, legal director Ken Falk said, "This ruling demonstrates that the Constitution applies to all Indiana residents and that the state cannot presume to regulate immigration."

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller also responded to Barker’s ruling.

“I take my responsibility to defend the statutes the Legislature passes from legal challenge as an important role of the office I hold. The court recognized that the Office of the Attorney General has faithfully defended all provisions of this statute until the U.S. Supreme Court last June said that state-level warrantless arrest laws are preempted as unconstitutional.  Now that the federal court decision reinforces what we said all along -- that immigration enforcement is a federal government not a state responsibility -- this case is at an end and the state will not appeal.  We are pleased that Judge Barker’s ruling has underscored and reiterated the responsibility of my office to defend state statutes as is our solemn obligation,” Zoeller said in a statement.

Barker also issued a separate order denying a motion to intervene filed last year by Republican Sens. Mike Delph, Brent Steele and Phil Boots. They wanted to defended portions of the state’s immigration law that Zoeller determined after the Arizona ruling could not withstand constitutional scrutiny.

“Having carefully reviewed the senators’ request, we cannot endorse the result they seek, and their motion to intervene must be denied. As would-be suitors these three legislators lack the power to substitute themselves for the Office of the Attorney General in order to pursue their own strategic litigation preferences,” Barker wrote in the order.

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT