A day after a lawsuit was filed targeting a Louisiana law related to federal immigration enforcement, a judge refused to issue a temporary restraining order.
The ACLU of Louisiana filed a lawsuit Dec. 3 in federal court saying Act 399 is too vague. The law makes it illegal to commit “any act” that could “hinder, delay or interfere) with federal immigration enforcement.
Critics have said the law violates the First Amendment because it is written in a way that it could be used to criminalize nearly anything.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed the lawsuit on behalf of New Orleans-based Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy, which provides free legal aid to immigrants.
But last month, ISLA stopped its sessions – that included telling people what to do if ICE agents showed up at their home and explaining their rights during an arrest – when Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill reminded people of the new law ahead of the recently started immigration enforcement.
ISLA says it is worried that its actions could be construed as a criminal act under the law.
ACLU of Louisiana Legal Director Nora Ahmed says it’s critical that people know their rights and that “we cannot have a law on the books that tells Louisianians that they cannot speak out.”
With Act 399, Ahmed says someone could be arrested for letting people know Border Patrol agents are nearby.
“People are terrified, and from what I hear is happening on the streets right now, they have every reason to be in abject terror of what we are currently hearing the Department of Homeland Security is undertaking,” Ahmed told the Louisiana Radio Network.
Ahmed says the way the law is written, someone could be arrested simply for letting people know that Border Patrol agents are in the vicinity.
“It appears as though it is limited to ensuring that nobody speaks out against the operation, because anything someone does could theoretically fall within the ambit of the statute,” Ahmed said. “With that law on the books, ISLA cannot go out right now and desperately provide a much-needed service to the community, unless and until a court says that they can.”
Before Thursday’s hearing, Murrill’s office filed an opposition brief. At the hearing, the judge declined to issue a temporary restraining order. Murrill’s office said, in a press release, the judge “seemed skeptical whether the court even had subject matter jurisdiction.”
The court scheduled another hearing next week on that issue and whether to only deny the TRO or dismiss the case entirely.
“It became apparent at the hearing today that the ACLU filed a lawsuit over nothing,” Murrill said. “There is no First Amendment problem with Act 399, and we’re grateful that the court has declined to issue a restraining order.”
