574 F.Supp.3d 571
N.D. Ill.2021Background
- Plaintiffs McHenry County and Kankakee County each had Detention Services Intergovernmental Agreements with the U.S. (USMS/ICE) to house federal detainees, including civil immigration detainees.
- Each Agreement permitted either party to terminate with 30 days' written notice and required notice to the Federal Government of litigation.
- Illinois enacted the Way Forward Act (amending the TRUST Act, 5 ILCS 805/15(g)), which (1) bars any state or local unit from entering or renewing agreements to house civil immigration detainees and (2) requires termination of existing agreements by Jan. 1, 2022.
- Counties sued Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul (official capacity) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging (a) the Act is preempted by federal law (8 U.S.C. §§ 1231, 1103) and (b) the Act violates federal intergovernmental immunity by impairing federal contracting.
- The court granted the State's motion to dismiss, denied motions to strike and for preliminary injunction as moot, and dismissed the case with prejudice (amendment futile).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preemption — does 8 U.S.C. §1103/§1231 preempt the Illinois Act? | §1103/§1231 occupy the field of detention and allow agreements with political subdivisions, so the State law is preempted. | §1103 is a federalism-limited provision addressing state sovereignty; Murphy requires federal law to regulate private actors to support ordinary preemption; §1103 does not regulate private actors or clearly displace state control over its subdivisions. | Court: No preemption. §1103 is federalism-focused and does not preempt the State's prohibition. |
| Intergovernmental immunity — does the Act unlawfully regulate or discriminate against the U.S. or its contractors? | Counties, as federal contractors, are clothed with federal intergovernmental immunity; the Act directly regulates federal operations by forbidding local agreements. | The federal authority to house detainees in state/local facilities is conditioned by §1103, which respects state sovereignty; Illinois validly barred its subdivisions from entering/maintaining such agreements. | Court: No violation. The Act does not directly regulate the U.S. or discriminate against it; State law validly exercises sovereign control over its political subdivisions. |
| Scope of §1103 rights for political subdivisions | §1103's reference to "political subdivision" means Congress intended to protect municipal ability to contract with federal government. | Congress did not plainly intend to displace state control over its subdivisions; political subdivisions are not sovereign and §1103 protects state-level federalism choices. | Court: §1103 does not confer a federal right on counties to contract that overrides state law. |
| Pleading / relief viability | Plaintiffs alleged plausible Supremacy Clause claims supporting injunctive/declaratory relief. | Plaintiffs cannot state a claim because federal law preserves state control; amendment would be futile. | Court: Dismissal with prejudice for failure to state a claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (overview of federal immigration power and preemption framework)
- Murphy v. NCAA, 138 S. Ct. 1461 (2018) (preemption analysis requires federal regulation of private actors; anticommandeering principles)
- Geo Group, Inc. v. Newsom, 15 F.4th 919 (9th Cir. 2021) (interpreting §1103 as a federalism-limited provision governing cooperative agreements with States)
- North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423 (1990) (intergovernmental immunity test: direct regulation or discrimination against the federal government)
- Ocean County Bd. of Comm’rs v. Att’y Gen. of N.J., 8 F.4th 176 (3d Cir. 2021) (concluding federal statutes that do not regulate private actors cannot serve as preemption bases)
- Nixon v. Missouri Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125 (2004) (federal preemption should not be read to upset States’ control over subdivisions absent a clear statement)
- Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) (clear-statement rule when federal law would alter state sovereign arrangements)
- Ysursa v. Pocatello Educ. Ass’n, 555 U.S. 353 (2009) (distinguishing sovereign States from non-sovereign political subdivisions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard)