ILNews

Officials weigh-in on ACLU immigration lawsuit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The governor has no comment on a class-action lawsuit filed Wednesday regarding Senate Enrolled Act 590, said Jane Jankowski, spokeswoman for Gov. Mitch Daniels. The suit – filed by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana – aims to prevent two components of the immigration legislation from becoming law on July 1.

Mike Delph, author of the legislation, released a statement regarding the suit on his legislative website that said, “Though I have not had the opportunity to review the specifics of the filing, it appears the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against citizens of Indiana in favor of illegal immigrants. This is not surprising given their very liberal leanings. What is equally unsurprising is their team of immigration attorneys that continue to profit financially off the backs of this captive market. …”

In the complaint filed in the U.S. District Court’s Southern District of Indiana, attorneys contend SEA 590’s language that authorizes police to arrest someone who has been issued a detainer or notice of action by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security will result in people being wrongfully detained.

A notice of action, the lawsuit explains, is simply a general administrative response issued by DHS: “Often it is in response to an application by an alien, for example, an application for an immigrant or nonimmigrant visa, refugee status, or even an application for naturalization to become a U.S. citizen.”

The law also penalizes people for offering or accepting consular identification cards (CIDs) as a means of valid identification. On its website Wednesday, The Mexican Embassy to the United States said that the language concerning CIDs is contrary to the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations.

In a statement issued Wednesday by the National Immigration Law Center, General Counsel Linton Joaquin said, “By cutting off the use of secure foreign photo identification, the law has effectively denied foreign visitors, scholars and immigrants in general the ability to engage in important commercial activity. These secure forms of official identification in a wide variety of settings are vital to both immigrants and society.”

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller’s office issued a statement saying Zoeller will “defend the new law passed by the Indiana General Assembly as is my obligation.”

In a U.S. Supreme Court ruling Thursday, the court upheld an Arizona law penalizing business owners for hiring illegal immigrants. In Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. Whiting, No. 09-115, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer dissented from the majority opinion, and Justice Elena Kagan did not consider the case.

For more on Indiana’s new immigration laws, see the June 8 edition of Indiana Lawyer.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT