State asks judge to uphold Indiana immigration law

Associated Press
April 11, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

State attorneys say the ACLU is exaggerating the powers Indiana's new immigration law gives to local police in an effort to persuade a federal judge to throw out parts of the law.

In a brief filed this week in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis, the state attorney general's office argued the ACLU and other plaintiffs have mischaracterized the law and that its provisions "do not mandate that local law enforcement arrest persons in a willy-nilly fashion based on the mere suspicion that the person may not legally be in the United States."

The General Assembly last year passed the law giving local police authority to enforce immigration laws in certain circumstances. But three immigrants, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the National Immigration Law Center, filed a federal lawsuit contending the law would give police unconstitutional arrest powers against immigrants who haven't committed crimes.

Judge Sarah Evans Barker granted an injunction last July blocking parts of the law from taking effect, and the plaintiffs are asking her to make the injunction permanent.

The ACLU has said the law's wording would allow the arrest of anyone who has had a notice of action filed by federal immigration authorities, a formal paperwork step that affects virtually anyone applying to be in the U.S. But the state claims that police could only arrest immigrants when they have documents showing the federal government has ordered them to be removed or detained, and the law allows officers to use discretion.

"The only way in which a law enforcement officer or the (Department of Correction) would receive removal orders or detainers is through the federal government, thus implying cooperation," the state argues. Critics claimed the state was overreaching its authority by interfering in an area of federal power.

But ACLU legal director Ken Falk said the law doesn't really require cooperation with federal authorities because police could access immigration documents in other ways — through various databases, for example, or simply by seeing a detainer order sitting on the front seat of an immigrant's car.

"The argument we've made all along is this law is on the books, some of this information is easily accessible, all of it is accessible somehow, and it puts people at risk of being arrested for things that are not crimes," Falk said Wednesday.

The other portion of the law that was blocked was a measure making it illegal for immigrants to use ID cards issued by foreign consulates as proof of identification. The ACLU has said the state law would interfere with foreign treaties allowing the cards.

But the state says the consular IDs could still be used at foreign consulates, and immigrants could use state driver's licenses or other forms of identification outside.

"Individual states on a daily basis require merchants to request proof of identification to purchase such items as alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and certain forms of medication for similar rational interests," the state says in its 35-page brief. "The Plaintiffs have failed to show any undue burden to legally identify themselves, and the Act does not preclude the use of a passport, issued by the government of a foreign state for identification purposes."

Falk said the state would be within its rights to ban people from using consular IDs to obtain a driver's license, but it had no business barring people from using them if they were asked to produce identification in other circumstances.

The state, however, argued in its brief that the other side's arguments are based on "strained hypotheticals to justify their claim that there is a lack of rational basis for the legislation."


  • Illegal
    Respect things of the country you left, but remember you choose to come to the U.S.A. so RESPECT our ways too! There are differences and if you try them, who knows you might like them.
  • Entering the USA
    How often we fail to realize our good fortune in living in a country where you have the freedom to make choices. If you are ashamed to stand by your colors, Red, White and Blue, you had better seek another flag and country. We need a type of patriotism that recognizes the reasons we choose to live in the U.S.A."
    There are good men/ women and bad men/ women of all nationalities, creeds and colors; and if this world of ours is ever to become what we hope someday it may become, it must be by the general recognition of the man's heart and soul, the man's worth and actions, determine his standing This country will not be a permanently good place for any of us to live in unless we make it a reasonably good place for all of us to live in. No man is above the law and no man is below the law, nor do we ask any man's permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience of the law is demanded; not asked as a favor. This is for citizens or immigrants,
  • immagration law
    illegal means just that which is a crime deport all aliens ,
  • Illegal aliens
    All illegal aliens should be removed from our United States. They take jobs from legal citizens and pay no taxes. The also use our hospitals,roads,housing, jails, schools and public assistance programs which is paid for by our citizens. They just steal from all of us

    Post a comment to this story

    We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
    You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
    Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
    No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
    We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

    Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

    Sponsored by

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
    Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
    Subscribe to IBJ
    1. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

    2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

    3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

    4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

    5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.