Move to Bar ICE Arrests at State Courthouses Gains Momentum Among NY Lawmakers
It's significant that the prevalence of ICE in and around state courthouses remained high last year, compared to previous years, because state court officials had actually instituted new rules intended to prevent those arrests.
January 14, 2020 at 04:18 PM
6 minute read
Legislation that would bar federal immigration authorities from arresting undocumented immigrants in and around state courthouses in New York without a judicial warrant has gained momentum in Albany, with a majority of lawmakers now signed on to sponsor the measure.
The bill, called the Protect Our Courts Act, now has support from more than half of lawmakers in both the state Assembly and Senate, making its chances of passing more likely than ever.
Assemblywoman Michaelle Solages, D-Queens, said Tuesday that she expects the measure to be approved this year after more of her colleagues offered their support. It was first introduced two years ago, but has since failed to gain traction.
"I think this year is the year to do it," Solages said. "We have a lot of momentum and a lot of support. Especially since we now have other legislative initiatives in place, it's now time to take that next step and make sure our courthouses are protected."
The measure now has 80 sponsors in the State Assembly, which is more than half of the 150-member chamber. In the Senate, the measure has 34 sponsors. It only needs 32 votes in the chamber to pass.
Deputy Senate Majority Leader Michael Gianaris, D-Queens, said he's planning to push for the bill to become law this year.
"I will do everything in my power to make this happen," Gianaris said.
The bill is carried in the State Senate by Sen. Brad Hoylman, D-Manhattan. Hoylman, who also chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Tuesday he's also confident lawmakers will approve the measure this year. It's his third year sponsoring the bill.
Hoylman, speaking at a press conference, went after U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which has ramped up deportation efforts in New York and around the country in recent years. Hoylman said New York's court should be off limits.
"Our courthouses should be sanctuaries for justice, not hunting grounds for ICE to round up members of the immigrant community," Hoylman said.
The comments came the same day that new data was released from the Immigrant Defense Project on the prevalence of civil arrests by federal immigration authorities in and around state courthouses in New York.
The report found that there's been a 1700% increase in the number of incidents involving ICE in and around state courthouses in New York since 2016. The data, obtained from New York state, tracked arrests and sightings each year from 2016 through the end of last year.
The largest spike in ICE courthouse operations was seen in Rockland County, where there was a sevenfold increase over the year before. Nassau, Suffolk and Westchester Counties also experienced an increase in ICE courthouse operations.
It's significant that the prevalence of ICE in and around state courthouses remained high last year, compared to previous years, because state court officials had actually instituted new rules intended to prevent those arrests.
The state Office of Court Administration, last April, administered a directive that required federal immigration authorities to first seek a judicial warrant before attempting to conduct a civil arrest at a state courthouse in New York. Administrative warrants aren't enough.
Mizue Aizeki, deputy director at the Immigrant Defense Project, said the data showed that ICE was not phased by the directive from OCA.
"Despite that directive, ICE did whatever it could to get around it," Aizeki said.
Rather than enter courthouses to make arrests, ICE was found to have targeted immigrants directly outside the building. The directive from OCA does not protect immigrants from civil arrests outside state courthouses.
The report found, as a result, that approximately 80% of total arrests by ICE at state courthouses happened when an immigrant was either on their way into a courthouse, or leaving the building.
The Immigrant Defense Project also claimed that it received reports of sightings where ICE did not make themselves known to court staff, which is also required by the directive.
They also documented instances where immigrants were taken by federal immigration authorities, who showed up in plainclothes and vehicles that weren't marked. At a press conference, lawmakers likened it to a kidnapping.
"We are in the midst of a human rights crisis," Aizeki said. "ICE will go to any means to fulfill their mass deportation agenda."
The Protect Our Courts Act would require ICE agents to identify themselves as federal immigration officers before making a civil arrest. It would also require, like the OCA directive, that ICE officers first receive a judicial warrant before making such an arrest.
But the proposed law would go further than the directive by prohibiting civil arrests by ICE immediately outside courthouses as well. The legislation reads that agents wouldn't be allowed to arrest someone who's either on their way to court, or leaving the building.
"Now with the OCA directive, I think it gives us greater support that we need to codify that in law and create a zone of protection so that ICE agents that are now going across the street won't be able to do that," Solages said.
A spokesman for ICE said Tuesday that federal law allows them to arrest immigrants in courthouses, regardless of what state lawmakers in New York decide to enact.
"ICE officers have been provided broad at-large arrest authority by Congress and may lawfully arrest removable aliens in courthouses, which is often necessitated by local policies that prevent law enforcement from cooperating with ICE efforts to arrange for a safe and orderly transfer of custody in the setting of a state or county prison or jail and put political rhetoric before public safety," the spokesman said.
The legislation is currently pending in the Codes Committee of the State Senate, but could come up for a vote in the Assembly at any time.
READ MORE:
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 AllRetired Judge Susan Cacace Elected Westchester DA in Win for Democrats
In Eric Adams Case and Other Corruption Matters, Prosecutors Seem Bent on Pushing Boundaries of Their Already Awesome Power
5 minute readEric Adams Trial Set for April as Defense Urges Dismissal of Bribery Count
Major Drug Companies Agree to Pay $49.1 Million to 50 States, Territories
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judge Orders Prosecution to Destroy Copies of Notes Found in Sean Combs' Prison Cell
- 2BIT Mining Bribery Scandal Highlights Trump-Biden Enforcement Gap
- 3AI Startup Founder Defrauded Investors of Millions, US Prosecutors Say
- 4Cyberattacks Slowing Down M&A Deals, Firm Report Finds
- 5$10 Million Settlement Reached for Baby Injured by Disconnected Ventilator
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