Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed an amended complaint against the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office on Jan. 9 after a court order found his original suit insufficient, according to recently uploaded court documents.
Rokita filed a lawsuit against the sheriff’s office and Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté on July 11, 2024, challenging the sheriff’s office policy on federal immigration detention. The lawsuit claimed MCSO’s policy failed to comply with Indiana law.
Indiana code disallows local policies from limiting the enforcement of federal immigration laws or preventing local officials’ cooperation with federal officials in situations related to immigration. Rokita is allowed to file this lawsuit as Attorney General due to Indiana Senate Enrolled Act 181.
The sheriff’s office policy Rokita challenged, MCSO-12, states that its employees can’t detain or hold people beyond their scheduled release date solely based on a non-criminal U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer. An immigration detainer is a request from ICE that asks a federal, state or local law enforcement branch to notify ICE before releasing a noncitizen and hold the noncitizen for up to an additional 48 hours.
However, Rokita wanted the policy changed to state that MCSO’s employees should detain any individual in custody upon receipt of an Immigration Detainer Notice of Action and abide by any applicable federal or state laws on immigration detainers while the individual is in custody. His lawsuit states that the original policy made by MCSO did not align with state law.
State law requires that government bodies do not inhibit officials from “communicating or cooperating with federal officials,” “sending to or receiving information from the United States Department of Homeland Security,” “maintaining information” or “exchanging information with another federal, state, or local government entity.”
Marté filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit Sept. 4, 2024, calling Rokita's complaint “baseless” and contending that MCSO-12 is fully in compliance with Indiana state law.
Monroe County Circuit Court released an order on Marté’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit Dec. 19, 2024. The court found Rokita’s complaint unable to adequately prove MCSO-12 violates Indiana law and allowed Rokita a chance to amend his complaint.
The amended version of the lawsuit is lengthier than the first draft and includes multiple clarifying points to its argument that the MCSO policy violates Indiana state law.
It notes that the policy bars MCSO officials from requesting information about an individual’s citizenship and immigration status from ICE. The policy also limits officials’ ability to access such information at the request of ICE unless “required to do so by law.” The lawsuit alleges these restrictions violate the statute that requires local government to allow law enforcement officers to cooperate with federal immigration law enforcement.
The amended lawsuit also alleges MCSO’s restrictions on entering agreements with ICE regarding immigration or citizenship violations are unlawful. Although local authorities are not required by Indiana law to enter agreements with ICE, the suit argues their ability to enter into such agreements cannot be inhibited.
The restriction of MCSO employees’ communication and cooperation with federal immigration authorities is also referenced as illegal. The lawsuit claims the policy is a violation because it limits employees from being able to enforce federal immigration laws to “the full extent permitted by federal law.”
Finally, in the “cause of action” portion of the amended lawsuit, the wording of the original lawsuit switches from claiming MCSO-12 violates Indiana law “in whole or in part” to claiming MCSO-12 violates Indiana law “including but not limited to for the reasons explained above.” This wording clarifies that the central ways in which MCSO-12 has violated the state law are listed in the document.
