AG Grewal Announces Limits on Local Law Enforcement Assisting Federal Immigration Authorities
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal on Thursday sharply limited the assistance that all state, county and local law enforcement officers may offer to federal immigration authorities—specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
November 29, 2018 at 05:42 PM
4 minute read
New Jersey Attorney General Gurbir Grewal on Thursday sharply limited the assistance that all state, county and local law enforcement officers may offer to federal immigration authorities—specifically U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The move illustrates the deep policy differences between the state's Democratic administration and those of Republican President Donald Trump, who has taken an aggressive approach toward immigration enforcement.
“The new rules are designed to strengthen trust between New Jersey law enforcement officers and the state's diverse immigrant communities,” the Attorney General's Office said in a statement.
“Today's directive is intended to draw a clear line between the responsibility of New Jersey's 36,000 law enforcement officers to enforce state criminal laws and the responsibility of federal immigration authorities to enforce federal civil immigration law,” the statement said.
ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
The directive applies to all state, county and local law enforcement agencies, including police, prosecutors, county detectives, sheriff's officers and correction officers.
The overall objective, according to the office, is to ensure that immigrants feel safe reporting crimes to state and local law enforcement officers.
The office called Directive 2018-6 the “Immigrant Trust Directive,” and said it goes into effect immediately.
The directive mandates that, except under limited circumstances, the state's law enforcement officers:
- May not stop, question, arrest, search or detain any individual based solely on actual or suspected immigration status.
- Cannot ask the immigration status of any individual, unless doing so is necessary to the ongoing investigation of a serious offense and relevant to the offense under investigation.
- Cannot participate in civil immigration enforcement operations conducted by ICE.
- Cannot provide ICE with access to state or local law enforcement resources, including equipment, office space, databases or property.
- Cannot allow ICE to interview an individual arrested on a criminal charge unless that person is first advised of his or her right to a be represented by counsel.
The announcement noted that the directive does not restrict the police from complying with federal law or valid court orders, including judicially issued arrest warrants for individuals, regardless of immigration status.
“We know from experience that individuals are far less likely to report a crime to the local police if they fear that the responding officer will turn them over to federal immigration authorities,” Grewal said in the announcement.
Veronica Allende, the director of the Division of Criminal Justice, added, “We cannot allow the line between our law enforcement officers and U.S. immigration officials—or the line between state criminal law and federal civil immigration law—to become blurred.”
The directive includes a number of specific exceptions:
- Officers may help federal immigration authorities in response to emergency circumstances.
- Officers may participate with federal authorities in joint law enforcement task forces, so long as the primary purpose is unrelated to federal civil immigration enforcement.
- Officers may request proof of identity from an individual during the course of an arrest or when legally justified during an investigative stop or detention.
The directive prohibits New Jersey law enforcement agencies from entering or renewing Section 287(g) agreements with federal authorities. Under such agreements, state and local agencies are deputized to enforce federal civil immigration laws without permission from the Attorney General's Office.
The directive also prohibits New Jersey authorities from providing U.S. immigration authorities with access to a detainee for an interview, unless that person has signed a written consent.
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 AllConstruction Worker Hit By Falling Concrete Settles Claims for $2.3M
4 minute read$113K Sanction Award to Law Firm at Stake: NJ Supreme Court Will Consider 'Unsettled Law' Frivolous Litigation Question
4 minute readWhich Outside Law Firms Are Irreplaceable, and Which Should Have Gotten the Ax Years Ago?
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Newsom Names Two Judges to Appellate Courts in San Francisco, Orange County
- 2Biden Has Few Ways to Protect His Environmental Legacy, Say Lawyers, Advocates
- 3UN Treaty Enacting Cybercrime Standards Likely to Face Headwinds in US, Other Countries
- 4Clark Hill Acquires L&E Boutique in Mexico City, Adding 5 Lawyers
- 56th Circuit Judges Spar Over Constitutionality of Ohio’s Ballot Initiative Procedures
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