Iowa Attorney General Takes Legal Action Against County Over Immigration Enforcement Dispute

Iowa Attorney General Takes Legal Action Against County Over Immigration Enforcement Dispute

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird has initiated legal proceedings to defund Winneshiek County following a controversial statement from its sheriff, Dan Marx. The sheriff declared a commitment to impede efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement to carry out deportation operations based on ICE detainers, which he labeled unconstitutional.

Background of the Dispute

This legal conflict emerges within a broader context of heightened efforts by the Trump administration to address illegal immigration and associated concerns in the country. As a member of the Republican Party, Bird contends that Marx’s refusal to honor ICE detainers hinders federal immigration enforcement, thus violating Iowa law.

Understanding ICE Detainers

ICE detainers serve as formal requests from federal authorities urging local law enforcement to detain individuals believed to be undocumented immigrants posing risks to community safety. ICE officials assert that noncompliance with these detainers may lead to dangerous individuals being returned to the streets, consequently jeopardizing public safety.

Details from the Sheriff

Despite these warnings, Sheriff Marx announced on social media that he would not facilitate the enforcement of ICE detainers. In a Facebook post dated February 4, Marx characterized ICE detainers as merely requests lacking constitutional validity.

He urged the public to reach out to his office if they encounter federal agents, stating that his department would assist with verifying the legitimacy of their documentation. Marx emphasized that cooperation would only occur if agents act within constitutional guidelines, highlighting a commitment to protect the rights of residents.

Claims Against ICE Detainers

According to Marx, the problems surrounding ICE detainers originate from a lack of proper judicial oversight. He contends that detainers signify insufficient information on behalf of federal agencies to justify detaining someone legally.

He asserted that such detainers violate citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights by promoting warrantless searches and arrests. Marx also proclaimed his adherence to constitutional principles rather than whims of opinion or politics.

State Response to the Controversy

Governor Kim Reynolds, a Republican, responded to Marx’s stance by filing an official complaint with Bird’s office, prompting an investigation. This investigation revealed that Marx’s office had complied with every ICE detainer request since the year 2018, contradicting his public statements.

Legal Actions Initiated

Bird issued a deadline for Marx to correct his public statements to align with Iowa law, yet when he declined to do so, she escalated matters by filing a lawsuit against the county. The suit seeks to withdraw state funding from Winneshiek County until the sheriff concedes and complies with federal immigration collaboration demands.

Bird asserts that Marx’s public statements, filled with what she described as errors in legal and factual interpretation, actively deter compliance with immigration enforcement laws.

The Legal Framework Involved

The lawsuit targets multiple counts of alleged violations of Iowa law, particularly citing section 27A.4. This law stipulates that counties become ineligible for state funding if they knowingly disregard legal requirements concerning federal cooperation.

Governor’s Stance on Sanctuary Policies

During discussions about the lawsuit, Bird emphasized the illegality of sanctuary counties under Iowa’s statutes. She articulated disappointment in the sheriff’s refusal to retract his statements, stating that such resistance ultimately harms the county and its residents.

Winneshiek County Auditors’ Comments

Officials from the Winneshiek County Sheriff’s Office and the county auditor, Benjamin D. Steines, declined to comment on the ongoing legal proceedings. They refrained from disclosing the financial repercussions of potential defunding amidst the lawsuit.

Future Implications