South Miami to Challenge Controversial Sanctuary Cities Ban
South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard echoed critics' concerns that the law would discourage undocumented residents from reporting crimes.
July 11, 2019 at 12:18 PM
4 minute read
The city of South Miami is preparing to fight a controversial new law aimed at banning so-called sanctuary cities, after commissioners unanimously agreed to hire an attorney to handle the legal challenge.
The ban, signed into law by Gov. Ron DeSantis last month, was one of the most fiercely fought issues of the 2019 legislative session that ended in May. The measure came after DeSantis vowed during his 2018 campaign to prevent sanctuary cities.
The law is designed to spur local law-enforcement agencies to fully comply with federal immigration detainers and share information with federal immigration authorities after undocumented immigrants are in custody. Under the new law, local governments are required to “use their best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.”
But during a brief special meeting Tuesday evening, South Miami Mayor Philip Stoddard echoed critics' concerns that the law would discourage undocumented residents from reporting crimes.
“Our police are responsible for maintaining the public safety, and as soon as they are seen as somebody who might turn you in if you called for assistance, they're no longer trusted and they can no longer do their primary job of keeping all the citizens and all the residents of a community safe,” Stoddard said. “It creates divisions.”
Stoddard, who said the city had been approached about the lawsuit by the Southern Poverty Law Center, said the statute is vague and overrides local authority.
“This state-level anti-sanctuary movement not only looks to repeal local sanctuary policies, it is also aimed at eliminating the discretion that local communities have traditionally exercised over their involvement in federal immigration enforcement efforts,” the resolution approved by the city commission states.
City Attorney Thomas Pepe warned the commission that several economic issues could arise from complying with the law, such as a lack of reimbursement from federal agencies and potential lawsuits against the city.
“If the city detains someone and there is no warrant, and nine times out of 10 there is no warrant other than an administrative warrant, the city could be liable for a due-process, equal-protection kind of claim that could be filed by the person that was detained by the city,” Pepe said.
When signing the bill into law in June, DeSantis said the measure will help ensure the safety of communities.
“This is about the rule of law,” he said at the time. “It's also about public safety.”
But opponents blasted the governor for signing the measure, which was sponsored by Sen. Joe Gruters, a Sarasota Republican who doubles as chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, and Rep. Cord Byrd, R-Neptune Beach. Critics of the proposal have argued, in part, that the law will lead to increased detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, including people stopped by police for minor offenses.
An arm of the Southern Poverty Law Center previously issued a statement alleging that the measure violates the U.S. Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable seizure.
“The legislation signed by Governor DeSantis today is unconstitutional, and Republican lawmakers knew this when they fast-tracked the bill to appease anti-immigrant voters and use racial grievance to drive a wedge between Floridians,” Scott McCoy, senior policy counsel for the SPLC Action Fund, said after the governor signed the measure. “This law forces local and state police to detain people for federal immigration authorities without probable cause.”
Jim Turner reports for the News Service of Florida.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCOVID-19 Death Suit Against Nursing Home Sent to State Court, 11th Circuit Affirms
Year-End Tax Planning: How Real Estate Investors Can Leverage Qualified Opportunity Funds
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Pusillanimous Press
- 2Contract Lifecycle Management Company ContractPodAi Unveils Leah Drive
- 3'Great News' for Businesses? Judge Halts Transparency Mandate
- 4Consilio Announces ‘Native AI Review,’ Expanding Its Gen AI E-Discovery Offerings
- 5Federal Judge Hits US With $227,000 Sanction for Discovery Misconduct
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250