Decatur Lawsuits: State Immigration Board Violating Transparency Laws
The city of Decatur, which is the target of a complaint filed by Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, claims the board set up to handle complaints is a repeat violator of the Open Records and Open Meetings acts.
April 05, 2018 at 11:20 AM
4 minute read
The cIty of Decatur has filed two lawsuits against the Georgia Immigration Enforcement Review Board, claiming the voluntary panel is violating the state's open records and open meetings laws.
Decatur is among 15 municipalities, universities and school systems with pending complaints before the board, which was set up by the General Assembly in 2011 to enforce legislation cracking down on illegal immigration.
Lt. Gov. Casey Cagle, a Republican candidate for governor, filed a complaint with the board in November accusing Decatur of being a “sanctuary city” after its commissioners formally adopted a policy announcing its police officers “will not prolong the detention of an immigrant per request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) without a judicially issued warrant.”
Two of the board's seven members were appointed by Cagle.
The complaints were filed Wednesday by Bryan Downs and Stephen Quinn of Wilson, Morton & Downs. Downs serves as Decatur's city attorney.
The open records complaint said the IERB, which operates under the aegis of the state Department of Audits and Accounting, has refused to provide any records or documents concerning “initial decisions, final decisions or recommendations of sanction issued by the IERB since July 1, 2011.”
The Open Meeting Act complaint said the IERB, which is required to meet a minimum of every three months, “does not have a regular schedule for its meetings and has not made such information available to the public.”
The IERB has had 23 meetings, of which at least 19 were “specially called meetings” at a variety of times and with little advance notice to the public since December 2012, according to the complaint.
“The lack of regularity with respect to IERB meetings makes it difficult if not impossible for an interested citizen or party to an IERB proceeding or their attorney to plan their schedule ahead of IERB meetings,” the complaint said.
Downs said the board—established to ensure compliance with state immigration law—is “not following Georgia's open government laws. This state board refuses to produce records of interest to the public and makes a habit of violating state requirements for open meetings.”
“The veiled manner in which the IERB is conducting its proceedings is not just detrimental to the City of Decatur, but also to the public as a whole,” Downs added.
In an emailed statement, IERB Chairman Shawn Hanley accused Decatur of resisting its investigation.
“It was the hope of the Immigration Enforcement Review Board that Decatur would be cooperative, accountable and transparent after a complaint was filed against the city,” said Hanley. “An active investigation into the complaint accusations has been ongoing for two months and during this time the city has refused to cooperate with investigators and used delaying tactics to stall this process.”
“The IERB takes all of its obligations seriously and we look forward to defending ourselves in court against these frivolous allegations by Decatur,” said Hanley.
In addition to Decatur, other pending complaints before the board target the city of Atlanta, Georgia Southern University, Marietta City Schools and the schools systems in Bibb, Bulloch, Cobb DeKalb, Glynn, Gwinnett, Hall and Whitfield counties.
A March report by the Southern Poverty Law Center said all but one of the complaints received since its inception were filed by Marietta-based anti-illegal immigration activist D.A. King
Attorney General Chris Carr's office is advising the board, according to the complaints. Carr's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
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 AllOn the Move: Hunton Andrews Kurth Practice Leader Named Charlotte Managing Partner
6 minute readPaul Weiss’ Shanmugam Joins 11th Circuit Fight Over False Claims Act’s Constitutionality
Atlanta Attorneys Rely on Google Earth, YouTube for Evidence in $6M Faulty Guardrail Settlement
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
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