Third Circuit Decision an “Enormous” Victory for the Wrongfully-Detained Undocumented

by Derek Gilna

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the case of Galarza v. Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, which ruled that local jails need only treat detainer requests by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency (ICE) as non-binding “requests,” has cast doubt on ICE’s previously unchallenged ability to require local law enforcement agencies to hold undocumented individuals who were otherwise eligible to be released. That decision let stand a complaint for monetary damages filed on behalf of Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen born in New Jersey being held on drug charges, by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) against Lehigh County.

Galarza, who had posted bail for the state charge and was eligible for release, was held an additional three days by the county as a result of an ICE detainer request; Galarza filed a Section 1983 request seeking damages for his wrongful detention.   The district court dismissed his complaint, saying that the county was required to honor the detainer request, but the Court of Appeals rejected that decision and permitted the lawsuit to continue. Galarza lost a part-time job and wages as a result of the wrongful imprisonment.

Galarza said, “This ruling makes me very glad because the Court recognized that U.S. citizens cannot be put through what they put me and my family through.” Unfortunately, such detainers are not all that uncommon, according to the ACLU, and are issued, “without a constitutionally valid basis, as in ... Mr. Galarza’s case.”  Kate Desormeau of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, who argued the case, also stated, “It’s risky for law enforcement agencies to treat ICE detainers as a basis for detention, as Lehigh County did.  Detainers aren’t warrants…”

Many other state and local governments have previously reached that conclusion, including California, Connecticut, New York City, Newark, Cook County, New Orleans, and Washington, D.C.

The ACLU has used such lawsuits to discourage local jails from honoring ICE’s detainer requests, with some success.  In the case of Galarza, ICE and the arresting police agency had already settled with him, leaving Lehigh County to bear the brunt of the 1983 litigation and any potential settlement.  ICE, who has dramatically scaled back its detainer requests in recent years, has declined to offer any assistance to their co-defendant.

The Third Circuit ruling said that the ICE detainer requests were inconsistent with the anti-commandeering principle of the Tenth Amendment, that the county was free to disregard the detainer requests, and that the request could not be used as a defense that its own action resulted in a deprivation of constitutional rights of the plaintiff.  Even the dissent’s opinion noted that the ruling “has enormous implications and will have...enormous ramifications.”  Lehigh County, now left to defend the case on its own, has yet to indicate whether or not it wishes to settle or go to trial.

Sources: “Third Circuit Ruling My Discourage Jails from Assisting Immigration Enforcement,” by Edward Sweeney, Correction Managers’ Report, April/May, 2014; “Third Circuit Appeals Court Rules That Immigration Detainers Are Non-Binding Requests in Ground-Breaking Case”; www.aclupa.org, March 5, 2014.