Listen to the article
A federal judge has temporarily halted Louisiana’s legal challenge to the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office immigration policy, ruling that the central legal questions should be decided by the Louisiana State Supreme Court rather than federal courts.
U.S. Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld ruled last Wednesday that the dispute over whether a recently enacted state ban on “sanctuary policies” requires the Sheriff’s Office to change its longstanding approach to immigration detainers is fundamentally a matter of state law.
“Not one concerns a federal question. Not one question has been addressed by a Louisiana court, let alone the Louisiana Supreme Court,” van Meerveld wrote in her ruling. “Considering the posture of this case, the Louisiana Supreme Court is in the better position to address these questions.”
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, who initiated the challenge to the Sheriff’s Office policy early last year, criticized the ruling as “just another delay tactic by the judge to resolve a very easy matter.” On Thursday, the state informed the court it would appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans.
At the center of the dispute is a 2013 policy prohibiting Orleans Parish jail staff from honoring federal immigration detainer requests to hold arrestees suspected of being in the country illegally past their release dates. This policy resulted from a settlement in a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by two construction workers, Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo, who were arrested on minor charges in 2009 and 2010.
The men alleged that then-Sheriff Marlin Gusman illegally detained them for months beyond their release dates at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), exceeding the two-day period federal law authorizes for immigration detainers.
Under the settlement agreement, the policy is to remain in effect “absent a change in federal or state law applicable to immigration detainers.” Attorney General Murrill argues such a change occurred with the passage of Act 314, which became effective in May 2024 and prohibits policies limiting local agencies’ cooperation with federal immigration investigations.
The political context surrounding the case reflects broader national immigration tensions. President Donald Trump, who counts both Murrill and Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry as allies, has increasingly pressed local governments to assist with federal immigration enforcement. Many Louisiana agencies have aligned with these efforts.
In New Orleans, city officials working with the state recently revoked a decade-old New Orleans Police Department policy that had restricted cooperation with federal immigration agencies like ICE and the U.S. Border Patrol. This change followed the dissolution of a long-running consent decree over the police department.
A victory for the state in this case could ultimately require deputies at the Orleans Justice Center, one of Louisiana’s largest jails, to participate in federal immigration enforcement efforts as well.
Judge van Meerveld identified three key questions that must be resolved under state law: whether Act 314 can be applied retroactively to a pre-existing legal agreement; if the state law conflicts with local autonomy granted to “home rule” cities like New Orleans under the state constitution; and whether Act 314 violates the Louisiana constitution’s prohibition on “unfunded mandates” imposed on local agencies.
“If Act 314 is invalid then it is not a change in law,” van Meerveld stated in her ruling. “And even if it is valid, if it was not intended to apply to this consent decree, then it cannot be interpreted as triggering the ‘change in law’ provision.”
Mary Yanik, co-director of the Tulane University Immigrants Rights Law Clinic and an attorney for Cacho and Ocampo, expressed encouragement that the judge “acknowledged that we have raised important legal questions about the state law that no court has yet to answer.”
“This order confirms the legal settlement remains in place as the courts consider the State’s legal challenge,” Yanik added. “Sheriff Hutson has done exactly what she promised to voters and what her office requires: she is following the law.”
The Sheriff’s Office, currently led by Susan Hutson, is also facing a separate lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over its refusal to comply with ICE demands. The office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the recent ruling.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This case underscores the complexities involved when federal, state and local jurisdictions have conflicting policies on immigration enforcement. The courts will play a crucial role in resolving the dispute.
I wonder how this case could impact immigration enforcement practices and ‘sanctuary’ policies in other jurisdictions across the country. The outcome may set an important legal precedent.
The AG’s criticism of the ruling as a ‘delay tactic’ suggests this is a politically charged issue. Hopefully the courts can provide an objective, impartial resolution.
Interesting legal dispute over immigration policies at the local level. I’m curious to see how the state Supreme Court will rule on this complex issue involving federal and state laws.
The judge’s reasoning for deferring to the state court seems prudent, given the state law questions involved.
It will be interesting to follow the appeals process and see if the higher courts reach a different conclusion than the federal magistrate judge on the appropriate forum for this case.
The state’s decision to appeal suggests they are confident the higher courts will side with their position.
This legal dispute touches on some fundamental questions around the respective roles of federal, state and local governments when it comes to immigration enforcement. Curious to see how it plays out.
This case highlights the tensions between federal and state/local immigration enforcement policies. It will be important for the courts to provide clarity on the legal boundaries.