One major development of special significance for New Orleanians is Louisiana's May enactment of Act No. 314 (SB 208), which prohibits any state entity, law enforcement agency, or local governmental entity from adopting or allowing a "sanctuary policy" restricting communication or cooperation between law enforcement agencies and federal immigration agencies. Expansively defining "sanctuary policy" to include customs and practices as well as policies and procedures, the new law carves out limited exceptions applicable to some noncitizens who are witnesses or victims of crimes. It also requires law enforcement agencies in custody of detainees subject to a federal immigration detainer to notify the judge with jurisdiction over the detainee's release on bail of that fact, and judges to record such notifications in the minute entry. Act No. 314's provisions are made enforceable against local law enforcement agencies and government entities by a lawsuit brought by the Louisiana Attorney General in the Nineteenth Judicial District. As the sole Louisiana jurisdiction with sanctuary policies, the immediate impacts of this law will affect New Orleans alone.

Meanwhile, immigrants and immigration attorneys throughout Louisiana are presented with the possibility of far more fundamental changes as result of the state's enactment of Act No. 670 (SB 388) in June. Act No. 670 introduces state criminal penalties for unauthorized migrants who enter or reenter Louisiana, including imprisonment for up to six months and fines of up to $1,000 for an initial offense, and imprisonment for up to two years and fines of up to $10,000 for each subsequent offense. In addition, the law authorizes Louisiana's Governor and Attorney General to assist Texas' Governor in establishing an interstate compact to share intelligence and resources for the purpose of surveilling, deterring, and physically preventing unauthorized migration through the United States-Mexico border. Act No. 670 provides that its criminal penalty provisions will become effective upon a decision by the Supreme Court upholding the similar legislation Texas enacted last year, and that its interstate compact provisions will become effective upon certain relevant executive actions by Texas' governor.

Though far less sweeping in their effects, two other recently enacted state laws are nonetheless of special interest for the immigration bar as well. One is Act No. 270 (HB 639), which revises R.S. 14:108(B)(1) to make a driver's failure to present a state issued ID upon an officer's request an act constituting resisting an officer. Another is Act No. 656 (HB 577), which prohibits certain social media platforms from selling information revealing the citizenship or immigration status of minor account holders.

As for Fifth Circuit developments, the most important change comes from the Supreme Court's decision in Wilkinson v. Garland, 601 U.S. (2024). Whereas Campos-Chavez v. Garland, 602 U.S. (2024), and Department of State v. Munoz, 602 U.S. __ (2024), leave existing Fifth Circuit in place, Wilkinson abrogates its decision in Perez v. Garland, 67 F.4th 254, 257 (5th Cir. 2023). As a result, judicial review is now available within the Fifth Circuit for denials of applications for cancellation of removal based on a determination that the likely harms of removal for a noncitizen would not amount to an "exceptional and extremely unusual hardship."

Another Fifth Circuit development worthy of note is its decision in Velasquez-Castillo v. Garland, 91 F.4th 358 (5th Cir. 2024), holding that the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) abused its discretion by failing to address a petitioner's argument that his proceedings should be reopened under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (TVPA).

Finally, local counsel should be aware that multiple practitioners in New Orleans and elsewhere in the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Mid South Chapter have recently reported that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers have begun detaining noncitizens on Orders of Supervision (OSUPs) at check-in appointments despite not being designated as enforcement priorities by ICE's public guidelines. Some attorneys have reported being personally informed by ICE agents of a change in policy. However, in mid-July, the ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) New Orleans Field Office responded to AILA Mid South's ICE ERO Liaison's requests for clarification by denying that any policy change has occurred.

About the Author...

Christopher D. Boom
Law Office of Christopher D. Boom
Immigration Law Committee Chair

Written on behalf of the Immigration Law Committee