N.J. wants hearing in appeal over law barring immigrant detention
It's been 18 months since a judge ruled partially against New Jersey in a case over a state law barring immigrant detention. The state wants a federal court to finally hear its appeal. (Stock photo)
The New Jersey Attorney General's Office wants a federal appeals court to finally schedule a hearing in a case that pits a private prison contractor against the state's law barring immigrant detention in the Garden State.
In a letter sent to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Monday, attorneys for the state note that it's been 18 months since a federal judge ruled that the state cannot bar private companies from entering into contracts with the federal government to house immigrant detainees here.
Until the 3rd Circuit hears and decides on the state's appeal of that ruling, the state cannot enforce the state's law on immigrant detention as it pertains to private companies, Jeremy Feigenbaum, solicitor general at the state Attorney General's Office, wrote in the letter. Or, as Feigenbaum put it, the state is 'prevented from 'effectuating statutes enacted by representatives of its people.''
'An oral argument date is needed for the timely resolution of this appeal,' he wrote.
The letter comes four days after a separate company announced it is planning to open a new immigrant jail in Newark later this year, one that will be the largest on the east coast.
The 3rd Circuit was initially set to hear the state's appeal in December, but an attorney for the federal government could not appear then. A new date has yet to be announced.
Attorneys for the two sides said they would be available between March 27 and May 28, according to Feigenbaum's letter.
As ICE eyes new immigrant jail in Newark, activists protest conditions at Elizabeth detention center
It's not unusual for cases to take time to go before the 3rd Circuit. When a federal judge ruled against staffing agencies in July 2023 in a case targeting a state law that offers protections for temporary workers, it took 11 months to reach the panel. But the 3rd Circuit can also hear cases quickly; after a judge sided with gun rights advocates who sued New Jersey over the state's new gun restriction law in May 2023, the 3rd Circuit heard the state's appeal in five months later (though it has yet to issue a ruling).
The law at the center of the immigrant detention case was signed in 2021 by Gov. Phil Murphy, a Democrat. It bars private and public entities from entering into contracts to house immigrant detainees, and it came after years of lobbying by immigrant advocates.
CoreCivic, a private firm that runs an immigrant detention center in Elizabeth, sued the state alleging the law is unconstitutional. In August 2023, a federal judge sided partially with CoreCivic, saying the state could bar public entities from contracting with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to house immigrant detainees, but it could not prohibit private companies from doing the same.
Since President Donald Trump regained the White House in January, he has said it is a top priority of his to detain and deport undocumented immigrants.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Louisville did not delay police reform order, say mayor, chief in response to criticism
Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg talks with attendees of The Louisville Forum at Vincenzo's in downtown Louisville. June 11, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) LOUISVILLE — Louisville Mayor Craig Greenberg and Louisville Police Chief Paul Humphrey said the city should not be blamed for delaying a court order to correct civil rights abuses by Louisville police and to reform the department. During the monthly meeting of The Louisville Forum Wednesday, Humphrey pointed to federal 'bureaucracy' while Greenberg acknowledged that 'a lot of people … think that our administration and the LMPD was the reason' a consent decree mandating police reforms was not signed before the Republican Trump administration killed the agreement as expected. The mayor insisted that is not the case. Responding to an audience question, Greenberg told the gathering that it took more than 11 months for the Justice Department under Democratic President Joe Biden to get the city a draft agreement after then-Attorney General Merrick Garland came to Kentucky in 2023 to discuss the police department's civil rights violations. Greenberg said the city at that time offered to provide an initial draft of a consent decree. 'They insisted that they would provide us with the first draft. Notwithstanding our weekly requests (of) when that draft was coming, we got the first draft of the consent decree 11 and a half months later,' Greenberg said. 'So we waited basically a year to see a first draft of the consent decree after Attorney General Garland came to our city.' Trump Justice Department moves to end consent decree aimed at reforming policing in Louisville The agreement was announced in December 2024, the month before President Donald Trump was inaugurated for his second term. In May, the Trump administration's U.S. Department of Justice pulled back from the consent decree, saying such actions are 'handcuffing local leaders.' The consent decree came in response to the 2020 police killing of Breonna Taylor, an unarmed Black woman, and a subsequent federal investigation that exposed a pattern of constitutional violations by Louisville police. Taylor's mother criticized the mayor, Louisville Public Media reported in May, accusing him of 'dragging his feet' on the issue. Louisville Metro Council member J.P. Lyninger, a Democrat, also has voiced disappointment with Democrat Greenberg's administration. 'The findings were announced two years ago,' he told Louisville Public Media last month. 'If we had more speedily entered into agreement with the Department of Justice, this would already be on the books and we wouldn't be talking about this today.' A consent decree is a negotiated agreement that avoids a trial by spelling out requirements that a federal judge signs and enforces. On Wednesday, Greenberg said, 'Louisville Metro government was not the reason why this took time.' Instead, he said, the police department and city had 'worked day and night with getting this done as their primary focus.' Humphrey agreed, saying there are 'a lot of things that could be improved about that process' at the federal level to expedite the consent decree process. The federal government, Humphrey said, was 'more concerned with protecting the case than they were with improving the police department.' On the same day the Trump administration moved to let LMPD off the hook for reform, Greenberg and Humphrey announced the city would move forward with its own Community Commitment, a 214-page handbook with goals similar to those outlined in the proposed consent decree. 'If we were using delay as a negotiating tactic, we would not have voluntarily signed the community commitment within hours of the Department of Justice announcing they were dropping the case,' Greenberg said at the Louisville Forum. 'It would have been a very different response.' Under the Community Commitment, the city will issue a request for proposals (RFP) seeking candidates to fill the role of an independent monitor. The public will be able to weigh in on monitor candidates via an online survey and at community listening sessions. The independent monitor will cost Louisville around $750,000, Greenberg said, and will have a five-year contract. 'We have our community commitment that we're moving forward with, and so … looking back at what the federal government did or didn't do is a waste of time, in all honesty,' Humphrey said. 'Let's move forward and … make this community better.' The city has several listening sessions already scheduled where the public can weigh in on reforms. 'I encourage you to be a part of the solution,' Greenberg said. 'It's very easy to criticize, it's very easy to observe and talk to friends. We want (people) across the community to be a part of the solution.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Gov. Greg Abbott sends Texas National Guard to sites of planned immigration protests
Gov. Greg Abbott announced late Tuesday that he would deploy Texas National Guard troops across the state in anticipation of protests against federal deportation raids. In a social media post, Abbott said the troop deployments were intended to 'ensure peace & order.' 'Peaceful protest is legal. Harming a person or property is illegal & will lead to arrest,' the governor said. He did not specify where the National Guard would be sent. The news comes amid demonstrations against immigration raids that started in Los Angeles last week and have spread across the country, including to Texas. On Monday evening, hundreds of protesters gathered in downtown Austin for a march that ended in the arrest of thirteen people and police firing tear gas into a portion of the crowd that refused to leave. Over the weekend, President Donald Trump deployed 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles in response to protests there, doing so without permission from Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat who appointed the state guard's adjutant general. Newsom responded by accusing Trump of choosing 'theatrics over public safety' and blaming him for escalating the 'chaos and violence' that unfolded. California officials on Monday sued the Trump administration in a bid to halt the deployment, calling it an 'unprecedented usurpation of state authority and resources.' Andrew Mahaleris, an Abbott spokesperson, confirmed Wednesday that Texas National Guard soldiers 'are on standby in areas where mass demonstrations are planned in case they are needed.' 'Peaceful protests are part of the fabric of our nation, but Texas will not tolerate the lawlessness we have seen in Los Angeles,' Mahaleris said in a statement. 'Anyone engaging in acts of violence or damaging property will be swiftly held accountable to the full extent of the law.' San Antonio Police Chief William McManus confirmed that Abbott has sent National Guard members to the city, but there are no additional details yet. There are 'No Kings' protests planned for Saturday in over two dozen Texas cities, including Houston, Austin, Lubbock and Longview. The title of the events — organized by the progressive group Indivisible — is meant to signal opposition to what the organizers see as Trump's authoritarian actions. Immigrant Families and Students in the Fight, known as FIEL, is also planning a 'Chant Down the Walls' protest in Houston on Friday. To prepare, the Harris County Sheriff's Office is 'coordinating with area public safety partners' to ensure that the demonstrations on Saturday will play out without endangering the public, the agency said in a statement. 'Harris County has a long history of people exercising their right to protest peacefully while respecting opposing viewpoints, and I fully expect Saturday's demonstrations to continue that legacy,' Sheriff Ed Gonzalez said in the statement. Austin Mayor Kirk Watson said he is 'supportive of people exercising their right to engage in peaceful protest against politics and policies that they disagree with. However, destructive actions or efforts to hurt police is wrong.' 'Much of what we see out of Washington is to create fear and chaos — we should not play into these politics of fear,' Watson, a Democrat, said in a statement. 'Adding to the chaos — through destruction of property, hurting other people, including police officers, or otherwise — adds to the problems for those people being targeted while empowering those in Washington who want more pain and chaos.' Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Baldwin ‘disappointed' Hegseth focused on renaming of USNS Harvey Milk over global threats
Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) on Wednesday questioned Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth over his decision to choose Pride Month as the time to direct the Navy to rename a ship named for gay rights activist Harvey Milk. Speaking during a Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing, Baldwin said she was 'disappointed' Hegseth was choosing to focus his time on renaming a John Lewis class of oil replenishment ships named for civil rights leaders, including the USNS Harvey Milk. 'I think we can all agree that we are at a critical point in our history with respect to global threats, the need to counter adversaries like China and Iran — you've gotten a number of questions along those lines — and I'm disappointed that you are instead focusing on a class of ships named for civil rights leaders,' Baldwin said. 'This committee will continue to pursue serious work in the interests of American national security, and I ask you to choose to join us in that endeavor,' she added. Hegseth replied that the Defense Department is 'not interested in naming ships after activists. That's the stance we're taking.' A former Navy lieutenant who served during the Korean War, Milk in 1977 became the first openly gay man elected to public office in California. He was assassinated a year later and posthumously was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2009. But Hegseth has ordered the Navy to strip USNS Harvey Milk of its moniker, prompting outcry from Democrat lawmakers and former Navy officials, who have called the move 'spiteful' and 'shameful.' Other ships could also soon see their names stripped — including the John Lewis class vessels named for Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Harriet Tubman — as part of Hegseth's dismantling of any military program or reading material dealing with or referencing diversity, anti-racism or gender issues. Baldwin, who was the first openly gay candidate to be elected to the Senate, also questioned Hegseth over the analysis used to justify booting transgender service members from the military. President Trump in a Jan. 27 executive order sought to remove transgender people from the military, stating they cannot satisfy the 'rigorous standards' needed to serve, and that allowing their participation threatens military readiness and unit cohesion. But that argument has long been used to keep marginalized groups — including Black, gay or female Americans — from serving. Transgender active-duty service members on Friday had to decide whether to leave the military on their own or be forced out under a 30-day deadline announced last month by Hegseth. Baldwin wanted to know the specific assessment the Defense Department conducted on the ban's impact on U.S. national security prior to its implementation, which Hegseth could not immediately name. 'The department is planning to separate several 1,000 service members due to your partisan beliefs about troops who are transgender,' Baldwin. 'Mr. Secretary, I've seen your speeches and social media posts, but what I'm interested in is the sound policy analysis that we would expect from the Secretary of Defense and how this misguided decision will impact military readiness.' 'We did extensive analysis,' Hegseth replied. 'We agree with the assessment of the executive order that was issued by the White House that there are mental health issues associated with gender dysphoria that complicate military service and readiness, and as a result, we made the decision.' Baldwin again pressed that she has 'asked for that analysis. Please provide it for me and the committee,' to which Hegseth said he would. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
