Thread: PA. Third Circuit Appeals Court Rules Immigration Detainers are Non-Binding Requests

Third Circuit Appeals Court Rules That Immigration Detainers are Non-Binding Requests in Ground-Breaking Case

March 4, 2014

Ruling Says Local Jails May Be Liable for Wrongful Immigration Detentions in Case of U.S. Citizen Held for Three Days

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
ACLU National, media@aclu.org
ACLU of Pennsylvania, 215-592-1513

PHILADELPHIA – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit today ruled that states and localities are not required to imprison people based on "detainer" requests from the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, ICE, recognizing that states and localities may share liability when they participate in wrongful immigration detentions.

The ruling in Galarza v. Szalczyk, et al., stems from Lehigh County Prison’s wrongful detention of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, who despite posting bail and telling his jailers that he was born in New Jersey was held in jail for three days because of an ICE detainer that stated only that ICE was investigating his immigration status.

Mr. Galarza’s complaint alleges that the detainer was issued based on his race, without any valid basis to believe that he was a removable non-citizen. The Third Circuit’s decision recognized that because ICE detainers are non-binding requests, Lehigh County can be held legally responsible for imprisoning Mr. Galarza for three days on this basis.

Reacting to today’s ruling, Mr. Galarza said, "This ruling makes me very glad because the Court recognized that U.S. citizens cannot be put through what they put me and my family through."

A growing number of states and localities, including California, Connecticut, New York City, Newark, Cook County, New Orleans, and Washington, DC, have adopted laws or policies limiting their involvement with ICE detainers, or declining to treat them as a basis for detention at all. Although ICE has long characterized its detainers as “requests,” this is the first time a federal appeals court has addressed this precise issue.

"Today’s decision confirms that all the states and localities that have decided to limit their entanglement with ICE detainers are well within their rights to do so," said Kate Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case.

"It’s risky for law enforcement agencies to treat ICE detainers as a basis for detention, as Lehigh County did. Detainers aren’t warrants, and ICE routinely issues detainers without a constitutionally valid basis, as it did in Mr. Galarza’s case."

The Third Circuit’s decision will allow Galarza’s lawsuit against Lehigh County to proceed in district court. The lawsuit seeks damages for Galarza, who lost a part-time job and wages as a result of his imprisonment.

"Locking up Ernesto Galarza for three days hurt him and his family and did nothing to make Lehigh County safer," said Mary Catherine Roper, senior staff attorney with the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "We hope Lehigh County takes a hard look at doing favors for ICE."

Ernesto Galarza is represented by Roper, Witold Walczak and Molly Tack-Hooper of the ACLU of Pennsylvania; Desormeau, Omar Jadwat, Cecillia Wang, Orion Danjuma and Esha Bhandari of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project; Jonathan Feinberg of Kairys, Rudovsky, Messing & Feinberg LLP; and Seth Kreimer of the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

https://www.aclu.org/immigrants-righ...nding-requests

March 31, 2014
Corruption Chronicles
Judicial Watch

In a ruling that could have serious consequences nationwide, a federal appellate court has decided that local police departments aren’t obligated to comply with federal immigration detainers because they are simply “requests” not orders.

Under a partnership between state, county, city and federal authorities local law enforcement agencies around the country notify immigration officials when an illegal immigrant is arrested. Suspects are detained in local jails while the feds initiate deportation proceedings. It’s a valuable team effort designed to rid communities of dangerous illegal aliens nabbed for committing local crimes, often as serious as murder, rape and child molestation.

Now we have the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals saying that the federal regulation allowing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to issue the detainers clearly defines them as requests. Besides, the court found, requiring local officials to hold suspects on federal immigration violations would violate constitutionally protected states’ rights. To further drive the point home, the three-judge panel added that “no U.S. Court of Appeals has ever described ICE detainers as anything but requests.” Secondly, the ruling says, “no provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorize federal officials to command local or state officials to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.”

The court was ruling on a Pennsylvania case in which an American citizen, Ernesto Galarza, was nabbed in a drug raid at the construction site where he worked. Somehow he was identified by a federal immigration agent as possibly being in the U.S. illegally and local police in Allentown held him in Lehigh County Prison. Days later when ICE officers questioned Galarza, they recognized the mistake and he was released. Galarza sued Leigh County but his lawsuit was dismissed in 2012 by a federal judge in Pennsylvania and Galarza appealed to the 3rd Circuit.

The appellate court ruling, issued earlier this month, not only revives the lawsuit against the county, it could have a major impact on how local prisons across the nation collaborate with immigration officials. After all, Galarza was detained by local police because a federal immigration official had identified him as an illegal alien. Local authorities assert they took the action because they had to. The appellate court slammed that argument, writing that immigration detainers are simply requests made by the feds to local municipalities.

In fact, the court writes in its ruling that “all federal agencies and departments having an interest in the matter have consistently described such detainers as requests.” Additionally, it says that all appellate courts have commented that an immigration detainer by local police is an “informal procedure” and that Congress has not authorized federal officials to command state or local officials to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.

A number of local governments—including Cook County Illinois, Berkeley California and King County in Washington State—across the nation have already backed out of the federal detainer program to protect illegal immigrants living in their jurisdiction. This ruling will only add more to the list and the threat of litigation will undoubtedly create hesitation among local officials that want to maintain the federal partnership.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/20...ted-to-comply/