A lawsuit filed Friday in Bucks County Court of Common Pleas seeks to block an agreement between the Bucks County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), alleging it is illegal and unauthorized.
The complaint was filed Friday afternoon at the Justice Center by ACLU of Pennsylvania and Community Justice Project on behalf of Make the Road Pennsylvania, the NAACP of Bucks County, BuxMont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship, and Bucks County resident Juan Navia. It names Bucks County Sheriff Fred Harran a Republican, and Bucks County government as defendants.
The county government, which is led by the commissioners, have largely distanced themselves from Harran’s office joining 287(g) program.
The two Democratic commissioners have said they don’t support it, noting the sheriff’s office should be focusing on its core mission and should allow federal law enforcement to handle immigration enforcement.
“I’m a supporter of ICE. They have a job to do. They’re in their lane doing what they’re supposed to do. I also am a supporter of our sheriff. The sheriff’s job is important … We just want to support ICE to do ICE and sheriff to do sheriff,” Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia, a Democrat, said at a public meeting last month.
Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo, a Republican, stated he has trust in Harran.
“When it comes to public safety and law enforcement, I trust Fred,” DiGirolamo said at a meeting in May. “I’ve watched him for 30-some years plus working in law enforcement and I watched how he’s protected our communities.”
The plaintiffs argue that Harran signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE, which would deputize local law enforcement to perform federal immigration enforcement duties using county resources and taxpayer funds. They contend that this agreement was made without the required authorization from the commissioners, which the commissioners confirmed last month.
According to the lawsuit, the state’s Intergovernmental Cooperation Act and the Pennsylvania Constitution require such agreements to be approved by the governing body through an ordinance or resolution. The plaintiffs state that the commissioners neither applied for nor authorized a 287(g) agreement, and no ordinance or resolution was passed to approve it.
The sheriff is an elected row officer and not appointed by the commissioners, who don’t have day-to-day control over the office that mostly works with the county’s courts.
“Sheriff Harran unilaterally signed an agreement with ICE, which on information and belief, purports to dedicate County resources, personnel, and taxpayer funds to perform federal immigration enforcement duties normally reserved for federal ICE agents,” the complaint states.
The groups noted that the commissioners disavowed the agreement at a May meeting and 2-1 passed a resolution that deemed it “unauthorized” and “not approved or delegated for approval by the Board of Commissioners.”
The resolution also stated that “entering into a 287(g) agreement with ICE is not an appropriate use of Bucks County taxpayer resources given the unfunded nature of this program and the potential for liability.”
Harran has allegedly continued preparations to implement the agreement and arrange for training of sheriff’s office personnel to work with ICE, the court filing claims.
Harran has previously told this news organization that it is not planning to conduct immigration raids, but wanted a small group of his 70-plus deputies to take part in federal training that is offered at no cost. He also noted the program would allow his office to have access to federal immigration databases to be used by law enforcement.
“This is going to be used on people with warrants, who have already committed a crime,” Harran said. “We’re not going to be doing raids of businesses or shops, and we’re not going out there to look for visa expirations.”
The plaintiffs state in their filing that by implementing the 287(g) agreement, there could be harm by diverting county resources, increasing the risk of racial profiling and civil rights violations, and undermining public safety by eroding trust within immigrant communities.
The organizations and the Bucks County resident who filed the lawsuit said they have concerns about the proper use of tax dollars and an increased risk of profiling by the sheriff’s office.
The filing seeks a declaration by a judge that the agreement between Harran and ICE is unlawful and void. It also requests an injunction ordering the defendants to terminate the agreement and immediately cease any implementation.
Harran and his office declined comment, citing active litigation.
Witold Walczak, legal director at the ACLU of Pennsylvania, said Harran taking part in the 287(g) program is part of a trend of “radical and reactionary anti-immigration elected officials assume that they can act with impunity to implement a chaotic and cruel agenda targeting immigrants.”
“You don’t have to go back very far into recent history to see how futile and fruitless these types of agreements have been in other Pennsylvania counties,” said Stephen Loney, senior supervising attorney at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “Local law enforcement is not equipped to operate as immigration agents and often make serious mistakes that can put the lives and livelihoods of those they target in serious jeopardy and cost taxpayers millions of dollars. Bucks County deserves better.”
“If the sheriff truly cared about public safety, he would be working to strengthen our communities, not terrorizing them. Bucks County deserves leadership that prioritizes unity and safety, not division and fear,” said Karen Rodriguez, member of Make the Road Pennsylvania and Bucks County resident.
Eric Nagy, the county’s director of policy and communications, said the commissioners are still reviewing the lawsuit.
The ACLU sent a letter to the sheriff in mid-May asking him to withdraw from the program and threatened a legal fight over the issue.
Danny Ceisler, the Democrat running against Harran and an attorney, criticized the sheriff’s actions last month.
“This is just more proof that Fred Harran really didn’t think this through before telling the White House he’d sign up,” “If you’re looking to significantly expand the authority of your office, your very first question should be whether you have the legal authority to do it,” Ceisler said.
Advertisement
Meet Your Canna Coach: Personalized Guidance, Free for You!
Leave a Comment