797 F. Supp. 2d 905
S.D. Ind.2011Background
- Buquer v. Indianapolis, challenges SEA 590 §§18,19 (Indiana) as of July 1, 2011.
- Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of §18 (CID ban) and §19 (warrantless arrests) until constitutionality and preemption are resolved.
- §19 allows arrest for removal orders, DHS detainers/notices of action, or probable cause of aggravated felonies; §18 creates infractions for using CIDs.
- The court notes INA framework, 287(g) delegation absence, and potential federal preemption and Fourth Amendment concerns.
- Plaintiffs allege standing and ripeness given imminent enforcement and pre-enforcement injury.
- The court grants the injunction, finding §18 and §19 likely unconstitutional and preempted and preliminarily enjoining enforcement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 19 violates the Fourth Amendment or is preempted. | Buquer/Adair/Urtiz argue §19 permits warrantless arrests for non-criminal conduct. | Indiana argues §19 is a permissible aid to enforcement and could be applied constitutionally. | Likely unconstitutional and preempted. |
| Section 18 preempts federal authority and burdens foreign relations/equal protection. | Buquer contends §18 interferes with VCCR and federal foreign affairs. | Section 18 is general regulation of identification with no direct treaty conflict. | Likely preempted and unconstitutional. |
| Plaintiffs have standing and ripeness to challenge §19 and §18. | Plaintiffs face credible threat of enforcement and injury from non-enforcement. | No imminent injury without enforcement. | Standing and ripeness established. |
| Due process/equal protection issues in §18. | §18 irrationally targets CID users (foreign nationals). | Regulation rationally furthers identification reliability. | Likely violation of due process/equal protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Babbitt v. UFW Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1979) (pre-enforcement and standing considerations in injunctions)
- Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452 (U.S. 1974) (pre-enforcement challenges to statutes; no need to wait for arrest)
- Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2009) (requirements for proving injury in fact; standing)
- Abbott Labs v. Mead Johnson & Co., 971 F.2d 6 (7th Cir. 1992) (sliding-scale approach to preliminary injunctions)
- Ty, Inc. v. Jones Group, Inc., 237 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2001) (sliding scale and balance of harms in injunctions)
- Indiana Right to Life, Inc. v. Shepard, 507 F.3d 545 (7th Cir. 2007) (ripeness standing in pre-enforcement challenges)
- United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) (preemption and immigration enforcement implications)
- DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976) (state regulation and immigration policy interplay)