Nobles County ordered to stop illegal detention for ICE

Listen to this article

Fifth Judicial District Judge Gregory Anderson has ordered Nobles County to stop detaining immigrants in jail after their cases have ended or they were eligible for release on bail. The county was complying with federal immigration authorities that asked it to detain certain immigrants.

This is not the first time a court has ordered the county to stop what the court characterized as false imprisonment.

This case, Esparza v. Nobles County, et al., was before the Court of Appeals in 2019 for review of an order for a temporary injunction, which was affirmed

A separate case against the county involving similar conduct and many of the same issues was heard in federal court in 2017. The federal case was settled with an agreement to modify the county’s jail policy to stop holding inmates pursuant to an ICE detainer, but the county continued its practices, Anderson said.

“The county is obviously disappointed the court did not agree with its position on statutory and official immunity. It is considering its options with regard to the decision. With regard to the permanent injunction, the jail’s amended policy is already consistent with the terms of the permanent injunction, so there is no impact on the jail’s practices,” said Stephanie Angolkar, who represented the county.

The plaintiffs were represented by the Minnesota American Civil Liberties Union through attorneys Norman Pentelovitch, Ian Bratlie and Teresa Nelson.

“The Court has made it crystal clear that holding an immigrant in jail after they would be released under state law is an unauthorized seizure under Minnesota law,” said Pentelovitch. “Depriving people of their liberty is a fundamental and cruel violation of their constitutional rights, and we’re glad the courts are holding Nobles County accountable.”

The court has entered a permanent injunction against these illegal practices that may now be redressed through contempt proceedings, Pentelovitch said. “This is not just about the sheriff having to implement a new policy.”

The ACLU has an active presence in immigrant communities throughout the state and expects to be able to determine if the injunction is violated, Pentelovitch said. He also believes that the organization may conduct some education campaigns.

‘Sweeping ruling’

In what the ACLU characterized as a “sweeping ruling” Anderson found no case law or state law that authorized the sheriff to detain people for ICE. “The Court of Appeals decision and the applicable case law, including that cited by Defendants, either clearly supports Plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law or is distinguishable to the point of having little if any relevance,” Anderson wrote.

Anderson’s ruling grants the plaintiffs partial summary judgment on claims other than damages, a permanent injunction, mandamus relief and declaratory judgment. Defendants had sought summary judgment and dismissal of all claims.

What remains is a damages trial for alleged false imprisonment. Anderson rejected the defendants’ claims that they were entitled to official and statutory immunity.

Statutory immunity does not apply because no policy considerations are involved, Anderson wrote. The county’s decision to cooperate with ICE as a “housing county” is simply not a valid reason to detain the plaintiffs and others in their position, the judge said.

The judge noted that the sheriff argued that he chose to cooperate with ICE by detaining immigrants in custody of the jail based on the policy consideration of the impact of illegal activities by immigrants in the community.

He also said in a footnote that Nobles County receives a considerable amount of income from the rental of jail cells by ICE, but said that the possible harm to the county would not be weighed very heavily in balancing the harm to individuals deprived of liberty against the loss of income to the country. The Court of Appeals’ opinion states that DHS pays the county $89.69 per day for each detainee.

The judge then said, “It cannot be seriously argued that the subjective decision by the sheriff to detain one type of inmate after the legal basis for their detention has ended due to the assessment of the inmates’ relative risk to the community permits statutory immunity.”

Official immunity, a common law doctrine, does not apply because of the ministerial nature of the actions and because “an objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of an official’s actions establishes that Defendant Wilkening’s actions [were] a willful or malicious wrong and therefore not subject to immunity,” Anderson wrote.

The judge noted that Sheriff Wilkening knew detaining people for ICE without authorization was “risky,” pointing out the ACLU and Minnesota Sheriff’s Association had warned against this for years.

He also noted that in Orellana v. Nobles County, a 2017 U.S. District Court case, there was an agreement to modify the jail’s detainer policy to read, “No individual should be held based solely on a federal immigration detainer … unless the person has been charged with a federal crime and the detainer is accompanied by either a warrant, affidavit of probable cause or removal order.” But none of the plaintiffs was charged with a federal crime and the policy was not modified, Anderson said. The language from the agreement was amended to state in written materials that “unless the person has been charged with a federal crime or the detainer is accompanied by a warrant, affidavit of probable cause, or removal order, the judge observed. However, the defendants again argued that they amended the jail policy after the temporary restraining order went into effect.