Renewed push would strengthen Indiana attorney general’s role in immigration enforcement

At the urging of President Donald Trump’s border czar, a once-killed Indiana House bill is being revived by some of the state’s top conservatives in their efforts to weed out illegal immigration in Hoosier communities.

The measure, now known as the Fostering and Advancing Immigration Reforms Necessary to Ensure Safety and Security (FAIRNESS) Act, would reinforce the state’s anti-sanctuary city statute by requiring local law enforcement and other government bodies to comply with federal immigration detainer requests and by giving Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita more tools to better enforce policies against agencies that don’t follow the law.

“It would be strengthening the role of the attorney general’s office,” said J.D. Prescott, R-Union City, author of the act, in an interview.

Indiana Senate Judiciary Chair Liz Brown, R-Fort Wayne, stalled the bill in March when she declined to give it a hearing.

Brown told The Lawyer in a statement last week that although she has not read the latest version of the bill that will be reintroduced in January, she said she is feeling “incredibly optimistic that strong legislation combating illegal immigration will land on Gov. (Mike) Braun’s desk in 2026.”

But Brown has publicly opposed the original bill in recent weeks, saying it had too many problems and that only a few issues have been talked about publicly, including the consolidation of power under the state attorney general.

“This is about centralizing an incredible amount of power in one person’s office,” Brown said in a radio interview with Indianapolis’ WIBC on Oct. 15.

The first attempt

The proposal was promoted at an event at the Statehouse on Oct. 14, where White House Border Czar Tom Homan urged legislators to pass it. Others at the event included Rokita and Gov. Mike Braun.

“The fact of the matter is, there is no country, and therefore no Indiana, if we don’t have a defined border, one language and a common culture,” Rokita said at the “Fairness for Hoosiers” event.

“Every state is now a border state, so all of us need to get involved,” he continued. “We don’t have time to waste, and we can’t afford to fail to act for a second session in a row.”

In February, the bill passed the House with flying colors, but was stalled by the Senate Judiciary Committee a month later.

Brown’s decision not to hold a hearing for the bill prompted fiery public backlash from Rokita, who claimed on a radio show that Brown stalled the legislation because “she’s got a family member who’s an illegal alien.”

Brown has consistently denied that claim and even filed an official grievance and disciplinary complaint against Rokita for his comments.

Detainer requests

Much of the debate recently in some Indiana communities has been over immigration detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In those requests, ICE asks state or local law enforcement agencies to hold arrestees for up to 48 hours beyond the time they would ordinarily be released so the feds have extra time to decide whether they should be put in federal custody for deportation.

“As a state, we think it’s important to comply with detainers,” said Blake Lanning, the assistant chief deputy for Indiana’s attorney general’s office. “Even though under federal law, they’re not obligatory, under state law, they should be. And that’s what the statute would do.”

Under the FAIRNESS Act, government bodies, such as local law enforcement departments, would have to comply with “all requests” made in the detainer—even if the detainer does not have a judicial warrant connected with it, Lanning said.

Brown has emphasized that, because detainers do not have to include a warrant alongside them, they don’t have as strong of legal protection for local police who impose them.

“The problem is that a detainer warrant, which is what ICE issues, is not an arrest warrant,” Brown said on Oct. 15. “So, there have to be certain procedures and processes followed so that the sheriffs are not held liable and the sheriffs are not held in violation of someone’s due process if they pick up the wrong person.”

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration to stop ICE from conducting warrantless arrests in Colorado without probable cause of the arrestee being a flight risk and in the country without proper legal documentation.

But Lanning said he doesn’t think following detainer requests without a judicial warrant is risky “at all,” saying Indiana has a long track record of local law enforcement honoring detainers without “ever once encountering that kind of lawsuit.”

“Even if someone were to bring that type of suit, the weight of the law is very firmly on our side on this issue,” Lanning said.

To emphasize local law enforcement’s “minimal” liability risk, Lanning pointed to the bill’s provision that calls on the attorney general to defend any government agency sued for enforcing the state’s immigration laws.

“In the kind of unlikely event this type of lawsuit is brought, the attorney general is going to be there shoulder to shoulder with local law enforcement providing the legal defense,” Lanning said. “We’re not going to leave sheriffs to kind of fend for themselves.”

Local law enforcement under heat

The Republican attorney general is currently wrestling with two Democratic sheriffs over alleged violations of the anti-sanctuary statute as it currently stands.

Last year, Rokita brought a complaint against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté for instituting a policy that allegedly violates Indiana law by restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

And in January, Rokita brought a similar suit against St. Joseph County Sheriff Bill Redman. The St. Joseph Circuit Court recently ruled against the state in Redman’s case, stating that the attorney general did not provide “any real factual basis” to prove that Redman and his office were not cooperating with ICE.

Rokita has appealed that decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals.

“Ensuring that no jurisdiction in Indiana gives sanctuary to illegal aliens is a priority for Hoosiers, and we will continue to enforce Indiana law vigorously,” a spokesperson with the attorney general’s office said in a statement.

The proposed FAIRNESS Act would make it easier to take action against government officials who ignore detainer requests by including language to clarify the scope and meaning of the state’s prohibition on sanctuary policies.

“The General Assembly isn’t infallible, so when they pass a law, it’s frequently the case that after the law has kind of been out there, you know, in operation for a few years, it becomes clear that we need to clarify this thing, or we need to, kind of, like, close down this loophole,” Lanning said. “That is absolutely part of what the FAIRNESS Act does.”

Increasing the attorney general’s authority

On the day of the event featuring Trump’s border czar, Brown met with Homan and a small group of legislators outside of the larger Statehouse event.

“We had a great conversation about what the Trump administration needs from states to protect our citizens,” she said last week. “I am also continuing these conversations with the Trump administration as we approach session.”

A day after the event, Brown went on WIBC and stood firm in her past decision not to hold a hearing on the original bill.

“Another part of the bill, which we haven’t really talked about, is that the attorney general’s office is consolidating in this bill more power to investigate, what would be an executive branch function to investigate, the agencies that the executive branch runs,” Brown said. “And I think that’s something the governor’s more than capable of doing.”

Under the proposed act, if the attorney general determines that probable cause exists that a government agency did not comply with an immigration detainer request, then the attorney general may intervene.

Also under the updated proposal, if an agency is found to have violated the anti-sanctuary law, then the governor may, upon the advice of the attorney general, withhold state funding to the agency for up to one year.

An attorney representing Sheriff Redman said he also thinks the language in the bill is intended to give more authority to the attorney general.

“I think that’s most likely the intent, and it’s part of an alarming trend, not just here, but nationwide, essentially, to use the machinery of government, and in some cases, the courts, to empower state officials to essentially enact their policy preferences or push their policy agenda,” said Michael Smyth, of South Bend-based Jones Law Office LLC.

But for Lanning, concerns that this bill gives too much authority to the attorney general is “one of the most ridiculous things” he’s heard in connection with the legislation.

“The authorities that the bill would vest in the attorney general’s office are more or less comparable to, and in fact, in many places, they are directly modeled on authorities that other states give to their state attorneys general,” he said.

Lanning argues that similar provisions have been in place in other states for many years and have been exercised “very responsibly,” so for him, there’s no reason to think that would lead to anything different in Indiana.•