CHEYENNE — A Laramie County District Court judge will decide whether to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Wyoming against Sheriff Brian Kozak and the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office related to immigration enforcement.
Monday morning, Judge Robin S. Cooley heard arguments regarding 287(g) agreements between LCSO and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The arguments centered on a motion to dismiss brought by the defense representing Kozak and the LCSO against JUNTOS, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Cheyenne (UUCC) and Drew’s Barbershop, the plaintiffs represented by ACLU senior staff attorney Andrew Malone. The ACLU filed this case on behalf of the plaintiffs due to each organization having to “significantly alter their normal business operations to respond to the consequences of the county’s involvement with 287(g).”
The 287(g) agreements consist of three models: Jail Enforcement, Warrant Service Officer and Task Force. The agreements allow local, county and state law enforcement to conduct some federal immigration duties. Only Sweetwater County Sheriff’s Office and LCSO have all three types of the agreements with ICE.
Malone has argued on behalf of ACLU of Wyoming that Sheriff Kozak entered into these agreements without the necessary public process or approval from the Laramie County commissioners.
An employee of Drew’s Barbershop, Carlos Montes-Calderon, was deported due to a 287(g) immigration enforcement operation, and the church has had to hold many of its events online due to members of the congregation not feeling safe in their own community.
Following the original complaint, attorneys representing Kozak filed a motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, which attempts to temporarily bar Kozak from expanding his power as he allegedly did in this instance to enter the 287(g) agreements.
The defense questioned the standing of the plaintiffs, meaning the harm or injury that has been caused by these contracts and their enforcement, along with compliance with the Wyoming Governmental Claims Act (WGCA). The defense laid out those issues, describing the lack of standing as an “insurmountable hurdle.”
The WGCA sets the rules for suing the state of Wyoming, local governments or a public official.
Defense attorneys characterized the harm the plaintiffs had endured as “self-inflicted and individual,” as well as “generalized grievances” by both JUNTOS and UUCC. They said the changes both have made to provide help to the members of the community affected were “their own decision to reallocate resources.”
In regard to Drew’s Barbershop, they explained what they believed to be a lack of causation, with the deportation of Montes-Calderon being attributed to him violating federal immigration law. Malone noted, however, that Montes-Calderon was originally pulled over due to a broken taillight, which would not be in the purview of ICE, as ICE agents cannot conduct traffic stops.
Judge Cooley questioned Malone regarding standing, wondering how the situation would differ if ICE had the resources to conduct immigration enforcement itself. He responded by explaining that due to the lack of resources, ICE uses these 287(g) agreements to act as force multipliers, and that the injury to the organizations would not have been the same. Malone also asked that the standing be relaxed due to “the great public interest” in the case.
A statement of interest signed by U.S. Attorney for the District of Wyoming Darin Smith on behalf of the Department of Justice supporting Kozak was referenced during Monday’s hearing.
Malone discussed the communal impact 287(g) agreements can have, with a key distinction being the constant presence of local law enforcement versus specific enforcement conducted by ICE. This can also lead to hesitation in regard to calling the police about any number of things that could turn into immigration enforcement.
Following the court hearing, Malone said, “It’s very important that there is an open, transparent and democratic process before anything that is going to cause this much of an issue takes place in the county.”
Brigitte Paul, a UUCC board member, spoke about the difficult position families with undocumented relatives are in. “If you’re in a mixed-status family, and your house catches on fire, you have to decide do we save our house or do we save our family members?”
Judge Cooley said she would take the arguments under advisement and would issue a written decision as quickly as possible.
Get any of our free email newsletters — news headlines, sports, arts & entertainment, state legislature, CFD news, and more.