06

By Marilyn Odendahl
The Indiana Citizen
September 6, 2024

Monroe County is fighting back against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, asserting his lawsuit, which claims the policies of the county sheriff’s department are violating the state’s anti-sanctuary cities statute, is “baseless,” “vague” and misinterpreting state law.

The county has enlisted attorneys from the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, based at Georgetown University Law Center, to lead its defense against the attorney general’s lawsuit, State of Indiana ex rel. Todd Rokita v. Ruben Marté, in his official capacity as Monroe County Sheriff, and Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, 53C06-2407-PL-001733. Also, the county filed a motion Wednesday asking the Monroe County Circuit Court to toss the case.

At issue is the policy of Monroe County Sheriff’s Department which clarifies when and how its employees should cooperate with federal authorities on immigration and citizenship matters. The policy states, in general, that department employees can share immigration and citizenship information with the federal government, but they cannot detain anyone solely on the basis of a non-criminal or administrative detainer from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

In an affidavit dated Sept. 3, Marté said the policy established guidelines related to citizenship and immigration status. The goal, he said, was to ensure all individuals were treated “fairly and equally” and to build trust, particularly within the immigrant community, so they would cooperate with law enforcement.

“The (policy) was crafted to comply with all federal and state laws, recognizing that enforcement of federal immigration laws is primarily a federal responsibility,” Marté said in his affidavit. “The Sheriff’s Office does not interfere with federal enforcement, but also has chosen not to affirmatively divert our limited resources away from crime-fighting and towards carrying out a federal responsibility.”

However, the attorney general’s office maintained the sheriff department’s policy violates the Indiana ban on sanctuary cities, Indiana Code section 5-2-18.2-3 and -4. In June, Rokita sent a letter to the sheriff’s department threatening legal action if the policy was not rescinded. The department did revise the policy to include the language from the state law but that did not satisfy the attorney general’s office.

The sheriff’s department has responded by asking the trial court to dismiss the attorney general’s lawsuit or, in the alternative, to grant the defendants summary judgment. In its memorandum supporting the motion to dismiss, the department asserts the attorney general’s complaint just lists a “handful of provisions” in the sheriff’s policy and does not explain how those provisions violate state law.

“Without any specific allegations about what parts of the policy the attorney general believes conflict with the state law and why, the complaint leaves Sheriff Marté guessing about what exactly he is accused of having done wrong,” the memorandum stated.

Potential of exposing county to liability

The Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection is acquainted with Indiana’s law banning sanctuary cities. A few years ago, the nonprofit successfully defended the city of Gary against a lawsuit claiming the community’s welcoming ordinance violated the anti-sanctuary cities statute.

The unanimous Indiana Supreme Court ruling in June 2022 in City of Gary v. Jeff Nicholson, et al., 22S-MI-252, found that the private individuals who had filed the lawsuit could not show how the welcoming ordinance harmed them. According to the decision, the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the ordinance because they did not allege any injury.

On the basis of that decision, the Indiana General Assembly amended the sanctuary cities statute during the 2024 session to give the Indiana attorney general the power to defend the law. Rokita began exercising his new ability even before the law became effective by sending letters to Monroe County and three other municipalities, demanding that they rescind their policies, that he determined violated the law, or face a lawsuit.

The cities of Gary and East Chicago withdrew their welcoming ordinances and the West Lafayette Police Department revised its policy for handling ICE immigration detainers.

So far, the Monroe County Sheriff’s Department is not budging. The department asserted in the memorandum that holding individuals in the local jail for no other reason than ICE had requested they be held “beyond their scheduled release date,” would violate the Fourth Amendment.

“Forcing Monroe County to hold people in extended custody on purely noncriminal grounds without a judicial warrant, or otherwise take steps to enforce federal immigration laws, could also subject the County to substantial risk of liability for federal civil rights violations,” the department argued. “This liability would be borne by the Sheriff’s Office – not the Attorney General – and would further deplete the pool of money to be used in the way that the Sheriff views are best for the residents of the County.”

Accusations of misinterpreting state law

In its memorandum, the sheriff’s department examined the language and construction of Indiana Code Section 5-2-18.2-3 and -4 and concluded the attorney general’s complaint “rests on a misinterpretation of the state law.”

The department faulted the attorney general for appearing to interpret Section 3 as a “sweeping cooperation mandate.” Rather, the Section focuses narrowly on the sharing and maintaining – but not the gathering – of information related to citizenship and immigration status. Reading the statute to encompass an array of actions, including detaining individuals after their scheduled release dates, “would be a massive expansion of the requirement imposed by the statute,” the department asserted.

Also, the department pointed to legislative history and stated Section 4 prohibits only the policies that “actively interfere” with the federal government’s enforcement of immigration laws. In drafting the sanctuary cities law in 2011, the department noted, the Indiana legislature initially included but then deleted provisions that would have required officers to request citizenship and immigration status from anyone they believed was not lawfully present in the United States and would have allowed the officers to transfer undocumented individuals to federal custody.

“Understood in light of the legislature decision not to include mandates for state and local involvement in immigration enforcement as part of the final law, Section 4’s reference to the ‘enforcement of federal immigration laws’ must be read as barring interference  with federal enforcement rather than referring to local participation in such enforcement,” the department argued.

Dwight Adams, an editor and writer based in Indianapolis, edited this article. He has been a content editor, copy editor and digital producer at The Indianapolis Star and IndyStar.com, and a planner for other papers, including the Louisville Courier Journal.

The Indiana Citizen is a nonpartisan, nonprofit platform dedicated to increasing the number of informed and engaged Hoosier citizens. We are operated by the Indiana Citizen Education Foundation, Inc., a 501(c)(3) public charity. For questions about the story, contact Marilyn Odendahl at marilyn.odendahl@indianacitizen.org.