{"id":32190,"date":"2018-03-13T22:02:47","date_gmt":"2018-03-14T03:02:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32190"},"modified":"2018-03-14T08:00:57","modified_gmt":"2018-03-14T13:00:57","slug":"ca5-tx-sanctuary-cities-law-is-not-enjoined-pending-trial-law-not-shown-unconstitutional-in-all-its-applications","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/?p=32190","title":{"rendered":"CA5: TX sanctuary cities law is not enjoined pending trial; law not shown unconstitutional in all its applications"},"content":{"rendered":"

Texas\u2019s sanctuary cities law (SB4) is not enjoined pending trial. Plaintiffs do not show that the law is unconstitutional in all its applications. City of El Cenizo, Texas v. State of Texas<\/a>, 17-50762 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018):
\n<\/p>\n

… Bringing a facial challenge, it is not enough for the plaintiffs to demonstrate that the ICE-detainer mandate will often cause Fourth Amendment violations. They must establish that the mandate \u201cis unconstitutional in all of its applications.\u201d Wash. State Grange v. Wash. State Republican Party, 552 U.S. 442, 449, 128 S. Ct. 1184, 1190 (2008). <\/p>\n

The plaintiffs suggest that the Supreme Court\u2019s recent decision in City of Los Angeles v. Patel, has lowered the bar for facial Fourth Amendment challenges, but they misconstrue the case. 135 S. Ct. 2443 (2015). Patel rejected the contention that facial Fourth Amendment challenges are \u201ccategorically barred or especially disfavored.\u201d Id. at 2449. The Court did not overrule the Salerno standard but merely clarified that, under the unconstitutional-in-all-of-its-applications analysis, a court must \u201cconsider[] only applications of the [challenged] statute in which it actually authorizes or prohibits conduct.\u201d Id. at 2451 (emphasis added). In other words, a facial challenge does not fail merely because exigent circumstances or a warrant could independently justify some applications of the challenged statute. Id. Thus, the plaintiffs must establish that every seizure authorized by the ICE detainer mandate violates the Fourth Amendment. They have not satisfied this exacting standard. <\/p>\n

It is undisputed that federal immigration officers may seize aliens based on an administrative warrant attesting to probable cause of removability. Abel v. United States, 362 U.S. 217, 233-34, 80 S. Ct. 683, 694 (1960). It is also evident that current ICE policy requires the Form I-247A to be accompanied by one of two such administrative warrants. On the form, an ICE officer certifies that probable cause of removability exists. Thus, an ICE-detainer request evidences probable cause of removability in every instance. Under the collective-knowledge doctrine, moreover, the ICE officer\u2019s knowledge may be imputed to local officials even when those officials are unaware of the specific facts that establish probable cause of removability. See United States v. Zuniga, 860 F.3d 276, 283 (5th Cir. 2017) (\u201cUnder the collective knowledge doctrine, an officer initiating the stop or conducting the search need not have personal knowledge of the evidence that gave rise to the reasonable suspicion or probable cause, so long as he is acting at the request of those who have the necessary information.\u201d). Compliance with an ICE detainer thus constitutes a paradigmatic instance of the collective-knowledge doctrine, where the detainer request itself provides the required \u201ccommunication between the arresting officer and an officer who has knowledge of all the necessary facts.\u201d United States v. Ibarra, 493 F.3d 526, 530 (5th Cir. 2007). <\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the plaintiffs make several arguments why this cooperation constitutes a per se violation of the Fourth Amendment. …<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Texas\u2019s sanctuary cities law (SB4) is not enjoined pending trial. Plaintiffs do not show that the law is unconstitutional in all its applications. City of El Cenizo, Texas v. State of Texas, 17-50762 (5th Cir. Mar. 13, 2018):<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[107],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-32190","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-immigration-arrests"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32190","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=32190"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32190\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":32200,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32190\/revisions\/32200"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=32190"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=32190"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/fourthamendment.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=32190"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}