McHenry Cnty. v. Raoul

574 F.Supp.3d 571

MCHENRY COUNTY, et al., Plaintiff,

v.Kwame RAOUL, Defendant.

Case No. 21 C 50341

United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Western Division.

Signed December 6, 2021

Jana E. Blake Dickson, Patrick Devin Kenneally, George Michael Hoffman, McHenry County State's Attorney's Office, Woodstock, IL, for Plaintiff.

Christopher Graham Wells, Alex Hemmer, Eileen Elizabeth Boyle Perich, Kathryn Hunt Muse, Office of the Attorney General of Illinois, Chief, Public Interest Division, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.

ORDER

Philip G. Reinhard, United States District Court Judge

For the reasons stated below, defendant's motion to dismiss [23] is granted. Defendant's motion to strike [22] is denied as moot. Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction [9] is denied as moot. This case is dismissed with prejudice as amendment would be futile.

STATEMENT-OPINION

Plaintiffs, the Illinois counties of McHenry and Kankakee, bring this action [7] against defendant, Kwame Raoul, in his official capacity as Illinois Attorney General. Plaintiffs each have a cooperative agreement with the federal government under which plaintiffs house certain categories of federal detainees. One of these categories of detainees is individuals detained for federal civil immigration violations. As to the housing of these immigration detainees, 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(11)(B) provided the Attorney General of the United States the statutory authority to enter to these agreements with plaintiffs.

The recently enacted Illinois Way Forward Act, 5 ILCS 805 5/15(g)(1), (2), prohibits any unit of Illinois state or local government from entering or renewing an agreement to house individuals detained for federal civil immigration violations and requires any unit of Illinois state or local government with an existing such agreement to exercise the termination provision of that agreement no later than January 1, 2022.¹

The claim alleged in plaintiffs’ complaint is that the Illinois Way Forward Act unlawfully requires them to terminate their contracts with the United States to house individuals detained for federal civil immigration violations and unlawfully prohibits them from ever entering contracts to house such civil immigration detainees in Illinois jails. They advance two legal theories, grounded in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, U.S. CONST., art. VI, cl. 2, to support this claim: (1) that as contractors for the United States they enjoy and are clothed with the federal government's intergovernmental immunity (Count I); and (2) that the Illinois Way Forward Act is preempted by federal law (Count II). The relief they seek in the complaint is a declaration that the Illinois Way Forward Act is unconstitutional and an injunction enjoining the defendant from enforcing the Illinois Way Forward Act against them.

Before the court are plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction [9] and defendant's motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [23] and to strike portions of the complaint [22]. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), (f).²

The Agreements

Plaintiffs each entered into a Detention Services Intergovernmental Agreement ("Agreement" or "Agreements") with the United States Department of Justice United States Marshals Service ("USMS")³ "for the housing, safekeeping, and subsistence of Federal detainees" in plaintiffs’ facilities. Each Agreement provides for the USMS and ICE to house, in plaintiffs’ facilities, federal detainees including, among others, "individuals who are awaiting a hearing on their immigration status or deportation." Dkt # 7-1, pp. 3, 19.

Each Agreement provides: "Either party may terminate this Agreement for any reason with written notice at least thirty (30) calendar days in advance of termination, unless an emergency situation requires the immediate relocation of Federal detainees." Id. , pp. 3-4, 19.

Each Agreement also provides that the "Federal Government shall be notified, in writing, of all litigation pertaining to this Agreement and provided copies of any pleadings filed or (sic) said litigation within five (5) working days of the filing" and that the "Local Government shall cooperate with the Federal Government legal staff and/or the United States Attorney regarding any requests pertaining to Federal Government or Local Government litigation." Id. , pp. 12, 27-28.

The Illinois Way Forward Act

The Illinois TRUST Act ("TRUST Act") ( 5 ILCS 805/1 et seq. ) became effective August 28, 2017. The legislative purpose section of the TRUST Act states: "Recognizing that State law does not currently grant State or local law enforcement the authority to enforce federal civil immigration laws, it is the intent of the General Assembly that nothing in this Act shall be construed to authorize any law enforcement agency or law enforcement official to enforce federal civil immigration law." 5 ILCS 805/5. The TRUST Act includes a section entitled "Prohibition on enforcing federal civil immigration laws." 5 ILCS 805/15. On August 2, 2021, the Illinois Way Forward Act ("Act") became effective. The Act amended the "Prohibition on enforcing federal civil immigration laws" section of the TRUST Act ( 5 ILCS 805/15 ) to add the following paragraph (g):

(1) No law enforcement agency, law enforcement official, or any unit of state or local government may enter into or renew any contract, intergovernmental service agreement, or any other agreement to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations.

(2) Any law enforcement agency, law enforcement official, or unit of state or local government with an existing contract, intergovernmental agreement or other agreement, whether in whole or in part, that is utilized to house or detain individuals for civil immigration violations shall exercise the termination provision in the agreement as applied to housing or detaining individuals for civil immigration violations no later than January 1, 2022."

5 ILCS 805/15(g).

The Complaint

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 1, 2021 challenging the constitutionality of this newly enacted paragraph (g) and filed an amended complaint [7] on September 15, 2021.⁴

The complaint alleges that as contractors for the United States plaintiffs enjoy and are clothed in the federal government's intergovernmental immunity and that by prohibiting intergovernmental agreements with local governments the Act substantially interferes with the federal government's operation and ICE's ability to carry out its detention responsibilities for the federal government. Plaintiffs allege the United States has not authorized the State of Illinois to regulate the federal government's activities with respect to housing immigration detainees. They allege that, despite the lack of authorization from the United States to do so, the Act directly regulates federal operations by restricting the United States’ ability to enter agreements with local governments to house immigration detainees. Thus, they allege the Act violates the federal government's intergovernmental immunity and is unconstitutional and invalid as applied to the Agreements.

The complaint also alleges the Act is preempted by federal law. They allege that the United States has occupied the field of contracting for housing federal immigration detainees leaving no room for concurrent state regulation; that the Act, by requiring plaintiffs to terminate the Agreements, substantially obstructs the federal government's housing of federal immigration detainees, stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress, and thus, is preempted.

Federal Law

"The Government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. This authority rests, in part, on the National Government's constitutional power to ‘establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization’, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, and its inherent power as sovereign to control and conduct relations with foreign nations." Arizona v. United States , 567 U.S. 387, 394-95, 132 S.Ct. 2492, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 (2012). "ICE officers are responsible for the identification, apprehension, and removal of illegal aliens from the United States." Id. at 397, 132 S.Ct. 2492 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In conjunction with the exercise of the responsibility for the identification, apprehension, and removal of illegal aliens from the United States, Congress has provided that the "Attorney General shall arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(1). "When United States Government facilities are unavailable or facilities adapted or suitably located for detention are unavailable for rental, the Attorney General may expend ... amounts necessary to acquire land and to acquire, build, remodel, repair, and operate facilities ... necessary for detention." Id.

Prior to initiating any project to construct any such new detention facility, ICE "shall consider the availability for purchase or lease of any existing prison, jail, detention center, or other comparable facility suitable for such use." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(g)(2).

In performing the Section 1231(g) duty to arrange for appropriate places of detention for aliens detained pending removal or a decision on removal, if the Attorney General wants to house these detainees in state facilities or the facilities of a state's political subdivision, Congress has provided the process by which the Attorney General may do so in 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(11)(B).

Section 1103(a)(11)(B) authorizes the United States Attorney General "to enter into a cooperative agreement with any State, territory, or political subdivision thereof, for the necessary construction, physical renovation, acquisition of equipment, supplies or materials required to establish acceptable conditions of confinement and detention services in any State or unit of local government...