Listen to the article
The New York county of Suffolk plans to appeal a multi-million-dollar verdict in favor of hundreds of immigrants who were found by a jury to be unlawfully detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Following a five-day trial in November, jurors awarded $112 million in damages to more than 670 immigrants. They found that Suffolk, the easternmost county in New York State, and its sheriff’s office unlawfully detained those immigrants between 2014-2018 based solely on detainers issued by ICE without showing probable cause.
The immigrants in question were them in jail after they were eligible for release so they could be transferred to federal immigration authorities. Jurors ruled the practice violated constitutional protections against unlawful detention and due process, resulting in the $112 million award. Civil rights advocates said the verdict carries major implications for how local governments may handle immigration detentions and further cooperate with federal authorities on immigration-based policies.
“There are too many variables involved to determine the effect that this verdict may have on the financial condition of the county at this time,” Mark Johnson, a spokesperson for the New York State Comptroller’s Office, told Military.com.
The county’s appeal was disclosed in filings to bond investors following the verdict.
Military.com reached out for comment to Suffolk County officials and the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office, as well as ICE and the Department of Homeland Security.
The verdict was eight years in the making. In 2017, the law firm Winston & Strawn and co-counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF filed a lawsuit in the Eastern District of New York asserting that Suffolk County unlawfully refused, based solely on detainer requests issued by ICE, to release their clients from custody after the resolution of their criminal cases.
Verdict ‘Sends Message’
“In our system of justice, it is well known that jurors have historically used their verdict to send a message,” Efrén Olivares, vice president of litigation and legal strategy at the National Immigration Law Center, told Military.com. “A $112 million damages verdict against Suffolk County sends that message.”
Olivares said the case underscores a legal boundary that many local governments have crossed, that civil detainers are not judicially authorized criminal warrants and can lead to unjust and unlawful detentions.
Other state and local entities that unlawfully detain immigrants may pay a similar price for their unlawful complicity with the federal government, Olivares added.
Advocates say the ruling lands at a moment when cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies remains under intense national scrutiny.
Immigration detention has increasingly intersected with the military community, including cases involving noncitizen service members and their families who have been caught in prolonged or disputed custody situations. It has prompted broader scrutiny from lawmakers and advocates concerned about due process and the depths of local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
Civil Detainers Triggered the Suit
Federal courts have consistently ruled that detainers, such as those by ICE, are voluntary and do not carry the authority of a judge-signed warrant.
A federal judge previously found Suffolk County liable, leaving jurors to determine damages. Jurors unanimously found that the county had violated clients’ rights and ordered them to pay $75 million for its Fourth Amendment and New York Constitution violations and another $37 million for procedural due process violations, according to a press release from Winston & Strawn.
The combined $112 million award is nearly 100 times larger than the firm’s next highest pro bono award.
Civil rights advocates familiar with the case say the compensation is expected to be distributed to individual plaintiffs based on the duration and circumstances of their detention, rather than paid to the county or federal government.
Regional Financial Impact Unknown
Suffolk County officials face questions about how the verdict could affect budgets and taxpayers.
Mark Johnson said Suffolk County disclosed to bond investors that it intends to appeal the judgment, adding that the county is best positioned to explain how it plans to manage the potential liability.
Audited financial statements show Suffolk County reported $2.65 billion in general fund revenues for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2024. The county’s debt limit stands at $28.5 billion, with 3.59% of that limit exhausted. The comptroller’s Fiscal Stress Monitoring System last designated the county at a moderate level of fiscal stress for the fiscal year ending Dec. 31, 2020.
There is no definitive timeline for the appeal process to reach conclusion.
Story Continues
Read the full article here
20 Comments
Efrén Olivares’ statement that the $112 million damages verdict sends a message is well-taken, as it highlights the importance of upholding constitutional protections against unlawful detention and due process.
It’s noteworthy that the law firm Winston & Strawn and co-counsel LatinoJustice PRLDEF took on this case, asserting that Suffolk County unlawfully refused to release their clients from custody after the resolution of their criminal cases, based solely on detainer requests issued by ICE.
I agree with the advocates who say that this ruling lands at a moment when cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies remains under intense national scrutiny, and it’s essential to ensure that local governments do not overstep their authority.
The $112 million verdict against Suffolk County is a significant ruling, and I’m curious to see how the county’s appeal will play out, considering the jury found that the county unlawfully detained over 670 immigrants between 2014-2018.
It will be interesting to see if the appeal is successful, given that the verdict was based on the finding that the county detained immigrants without probable cause, solely on detainers issued by ICE.
The verdict is a significant victory for civil rights advocates and the immigrants who were unlawfully detained, and it underscores the need for continued vigilance and advocacy to protect the rights of all individuals, regardless of immigration status.
I’m concerned about the financial implications of this verdict for Suffolk County, as Mark Johnson from the New York State Comptroller’s Office mentioned that there are too many variables involved to determine the effect on the county’s financial condition at this time.
The potential implications of this verdict for local governments that unlawfully detain immigrants are significant, as Efrén Olivares noted, and could lead to a shift in how these entities cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The case highlights the importance of judicial oversight and the role of juries in ensuring that government agencies, including local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, do not overstep their authority and violate individual rights.
The statement that civil detainers are not judicially authorized criminal warrants and can lead to unjust and unlawful detentions is crucial, as it underscores the need for careful consideration and adherence to constitutional protections in immigration detention cases.
I hope that this verdict will lead to a reevaluation of immigration detention policies and practices at the local and federal levels, with a focus on upholding constitutional protections and ensuring that detentions are lawful and justified.
The fact that the jury awarded $112 million in damages to more than 670 immigrants indicates the severity of the violations and the importance of holding local governments accountable for their actions in immigration detention cases.
The statement by Efrén Olivares that the verdict sends a message to local governments that have unlawfully detained immigrants is particularly noteworthy, as it emphasizes the importance of accountability and the potential consequences for such actions.
It will be important to monitor how this verdict affects the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration agencies, particularly in terms of detainer policies and the handling of immigration cases.
I’m skeptical about the county’s decision to appeal the verdict, considering the jury’s findings and the clear violation of constitutional protections, and I hope that the appeal process will not unduly delay justice for the affected immigrants.
The timing of this verdict is critical, as it comes at a moment when there is growing scrutiny of immigration policies and the role of local law enforcement in enforcing federal immigration laws, and it may serve as a precedent for future cases.
The intersection of immigration detention with the military community, including cases involving noncitizens, adds another layer of complexity to this issue, and I hope that this verdict will lead to greater scrutiny and accountability in such cases.
It’s essential to consider the human impact of these detentions, as the immigrants in question were held in jail after they were eligible for release, solely to be transferred to federal immigration authorities, which is a clear violation of their rights.
Given that the verdict found Suffolk County’s practice of detaining immigrants based solely on ICE detainers to be unconstitutional, I wonder if other counties will review their own policies to avoid similar lawsuits and verdicts.
The fact that the verdict was eight years in the making, originating from a lawsuit filed in 2017, shows the complexity and longevity of these types of cases, and the importance of persistence in seeking justice for unlawful detentions.