US Attorney General Pamela Bondi sent a letter to RI Governor Daniel McKee and RI Attorney General Peter Neronha, dated Aug 13, stating “You are hereby notified that your jurisdiction has been identified as one that engages in sanctuary policies and practices that thwart federal immigration enforcement… This ends now.” The letter demanded a response by Aug 19.
On a US Department of Justice (DOJ) web page, RI is one of 12 states plus the District of Columbia listed as “sanctuary jurisdictions,” along with a number of counties and cities, that meet one or more of nine criteria. One notable criterion is: “Limits on ICE Detainers: Cities, states, or counties that refuse to honor ICE detainer requests unless there is a warrant signed by a judge.”
In response to our inquiry, Gov. McKee told Motif, “This generic, non-specific form letter lacks any meaningful detail and does not merit a response.”
In response to our inquiry, AG Neronha told Motif:
This letter does not change my view: it’s the tactic of a bully. And the only way to deal with a bully is to let them know that they’re not going to intimidate you. Rhode Island cooperates with all federal law enforcement agencies routinely, as required by federal law. Federal law does not require the state to divert important law enforcement resources to do the federal government’s civil immigration law bidding. If the Trump Administration takes issue with this, then the doors of federal court are open to them. Until that point, my focus is elsewhere.
An immigration detainer is a formal notice to local law enforcement (typically in RI, sent to the state prison) where federal officials request that a person who is otherwise entitled to be released instead continue to be held in custody to be picked up by federal officials for deportation proceedings.
In 2014, both the federal and state governments emphatically lost in a ruling by Judge John J. McConnell Jr of the US District Court for the District of RI, in Morales v. Chadbourne, a case brought by a plaintiff unlawfully held in the RI Adult Correctional Institution (ACI) to comply with a detainer from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a part of the DOJ. Guatemalan-born Ada Morales had been unlawfully subjected to immigration detainers twice, in 2004 and 2009, despite having become a naturalized US citizen in 1995 after living in the US as a lawful permanent resident since the 1980s. ICE has no authority whatsoever to issue an immigration detainer against a US citizen. She was naturalized under her maiden name, Cabrera, and her married name, Morales, by chance was recorded as an alias by a wanted person in a database.
As the case slowly crawled toward trial, the First Circuit substantially affirmed this ruling on appeal. Judge McConnell excoriated both ICE and the state in the strongest terms, finding the state outright wrong, claiming they lacked discretion not to comply with an ICE detainer, which under the law was merely a “request,” meaning the state had its own duty to check Morales’ claim to be a US citizen. Judge McConnell also noted that ICE failed to meet the legal standard of probable cause in sending the detainer to the ACI, stating a purpose to “investigate” Morales’ immigration status; Morales argued that she was held only because of her Latin surname and her having been born in Guatemala.
Immediately after this court ruling, then-Gov. Lincoln Chafee issued Executive Order 22691: “Agents of the Rhode Island executive branch shall not detain an individual pursuant to an ICE Detainer… unless ICE has obtained a judicial order of deportation or removal from the United States for the individual.” Regardless of this policy directly resulting from compliance with embarrassing adverse rulings in federal court, it precisely triggers one of the criteria for being a “sanctuary jurisdiction” as now defined by the US Department of Justice.
In response to our inquiry, Steven Brown, executive director of the RI chapter of the American Civil Liberties Uunion, told Motif:
We believe that the DOJ letter is a frivolous attempt to intimidate jurisdictions that refuse to march in step with the Trump Administration’s incredibly cruel, and often illegal, attacks on immigrant communities throughout the country. Their incredibly broad definition of “sanctuary jurisdictions” – which includes places that “prohibit local funds or resources from being used to support federal immigration enforcement efforts” – borders on the absurd.
Brown noted that the ACLU issued a news release about the case in 2017 – https://www.riaclu.org/en/news/aclu-settles-lawsuit-behalf-us-citizen-unlawfully-detained-aci-deportable-alien – which states “…since Morales sued the agency, ICE has acknowledged that compliance with these ‘hold’ requests is purely voluntary.”
The DOJ did not reply to an invitation from Motif to comment.
(Disclosure: As was Morales, Motif reporter Michael Bilow is currently represented by the ACLU in an unrelated public records case, Bilow v. Brown University.)