A contentious legal battle over immigration policy enforcement is nearing a critical juncture in Louisiana, as the state’s Supreme Court deliberates the fate of a longstanding policy by the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office (OPSO). This policy, which restricts the office from detaining individuals based solely on federal immigration authorities’ requests, has sparked significant legal debate.
On April 28, civil rights attorneys defended the OPSO’s position in front of the Louisiana Supreme Court. Meanwhile, state lawyers pushed for the policy’s abolition, citing a recent state law that targets so-called “sanctuary cities” as its foundation for conflict.
Act 314 of 2024 prohibits local governments from adopting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration investigations. It mandates that local law enforcement comply with immigration detainer requests, which are typically issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their normal release dates if they face potential deportation.
This law clashes with the OPSO’s policy, established over a decade ago following a federal civil rights lawsuit. The lawsuit involved two construction workers, Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo, who claimed they were detained illegally by the former sheriff, Marlin Gusman, beyond their scheduled release dates. As a settlement in 2013, the OPSO agreed to a policy limiting compliance with immigration detainers to cases involving severe criminal charges, such as first-degree murder and treason. The policy also restricts the office from investigating detainees’ immigration status.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill has sought to challenge the policy, arguing that it violates Act 314. “Like every Louisiana law enforcement agency bound by Louisiana law, the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office cannot obstruct or impede federal immigration authorities,” Murrill stated, expressing hope for a swift resolution by the Louisiana Supreme Court.
Last year, a federal magistrate judge permitted the state to intervene in the case but did not decide on dissolving the immigration policy. The case was referred to the Louisiana Supreme Court to assess the impact of the new state law on the existing policy.
The core legal questions involve whether Act 314 can override a pre-existing legal agreement, how it aligns with New Orleans’ “home rule” charter, and if it constitutes an “unfunded mandate” prohibited by the state constitution. Alyssa Bernard-Yanni, representing Cacho and Ocampo, argued that Act 314 may not apply to federal consent decrees.
During legislative discussions, Sen. Blake Miguez, who sponsored the bill, noted that it was not intended to conflict with federal court judgments. However, Zachary Faircloth, representing the state, highlighted the legal nuances, stating, “The plain language in the (Cacho settlement) says a change in law as it relates to immigration detainers.”
Chief Justice John Wiemer and other justices explored the legislative intent behind Act 314, debating its potential impact on local policies enacted under federal consent decrees. The decision will ultimately address whether local entities must adhere to state law despite federal mandates.
The Louisiana Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue remains pending, with significant implications for the enforcement of immigration policies and the balance of state and federal authority.
This story originally appeared on Verite News and was distributed in partnership with The Associated Press.
