City of Gary v. Nicholson
Decision Date | 10 December 2021 |
Docket Number | Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-MI-2317 |
Citation | 181 N.E.3d 390 |
Parties | CITY OF GARY, Appellant-Defendant, v. Jeff NICHOLSON, Douglas Grimes, Greg Serbon, and Cheree Calabro, Appellees-Plaintiffs, and State of Indiana, Appellee-Intervenor. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Attorneys for Appellant: Rodney Pol, Jr., Corporation Counsel, Gary, Indiana, Joseph W. Mead, Senior Counsel, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection, Washington, DC, Amy L. Marshak, Mary B. McCord, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy & Protection, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, DC
Attorneys for Appellees: Dale Lee Wilcox, Executive Director and General Counsel, Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, James Bopp, Jr., Richard E. Coleson, Courtney Turner Milbank, Melena S. Siebert, The Bopp Law Firm, PC, Terre Haute, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee-Intervenor: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Thomas M. Fisher, Solicitor General, Aaron T. Craft, Section Chief, Civil Appeals, Benjamin M. L. Jones, Julia C. Payne, Abigail R. Recker, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, Indiana
[1] In this appeal, we consider whether certain provisions of the City of Gary's "Welcoming City" ordinance violate Indiana Code Section 5-2-18.2-3, which prohibits governmental bodies from restricting the sharing of information of the citizenship or immigration status of a person, and Indiana Code Section 5-2-18.2-4, which prohibits governmental bodies from limiting or restricting the enforcement of federal immigration laws. Jeff Nicholson, Douglas Grimes, Greg Serbon, and Cheree Calabro (collectively "Nicholson") filed a complaint against the City of Gary ("Gary") seeking a declaratory judgment and an injunction after Gary passed Ordinance No. 9100 ("the Ordinance"). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the State intervened. Following a hearing, the trial court granted Nicholson's summary judgment motion, denied Gary's summary judgment motion, and issued an injunction that purported to prohibit Gary from enforcing certain provisions of the Ordinance. Gary appeals and raises three issues for our review:
[2] We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand with instructions.1
[3] In 2017, Gary passed the Ordinance, which sought "to make everyone in the community feel welcome" and "to ensure that the immigration status of those who live, work, or pass through Gary will not affect how they are treated by Gary agencies and agents, including its police department and social services providers." Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 63. In relevant part, the Ordinance generally prohibits local officials from requesting information or otherwise investigating or assisting in the investigation of the citizenship or immigration status of a person unless required by court order, or stopping, arresting, detaining, or continuing to detain a person "after that person becomes eligible for release from custody or is free to leave an encounter" with an official. Id. at 54. The Ordinance requires local officials to "consider the extreme potential negative consequences of an arrest in exercising discretion whether to" arrest an individual. Id. at 57. And the Ordinance states that "nothing ... prohibits any municipal agency from sending to, or receiving from, any local, state, [or] federal agency, information regarding an individual's citizenship or immigration status." Id.
[4] In passing the Ordinance, Gary did not intend "to hinder federal immigration enforcement." Id. at 64. To that end, Gary "signed a Declaration with the United States Department of Justice stating that the City will comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1373," which provides that a local government may not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status of any individual. Id.
[5] In December 2017, Nicholson filed a verified complaint2 against Gary seeking a declaratory judgment and injunction.3 Nicholson alleged in relevant part that four provisions of the Ordinance violate Indiana Code Sections 5-2-18.2-3 and - 4, specifically:
[6] Gary and Nicholson filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the State intervened. Following a hearing, the trial court issued an order granting Nicholson's summary judgment motion and denying Gary's summary judgment motion. The order did not include findings and conclusions but simply held that:
[Nicholson's] Summary-Judgment Motion as filed on 12/27/2017 is GRANTED as to its claims against the sole remaining party-defendant, [Gary], such that [Gary] is hereby prohibited from enforcing those provisions of its City of Gary Ordinance 9100 Section 26-52, Section 26-55, Section 26.58(c) and Section 26.59[ ] that are violative of Indiana Code §§ 5-2-18.2-3, 5-2-18.2-4 and/or other applicable state or federal law.
Id. at 3. In its order the trial court did not enumerate which of "those provisions" contained within the challenged sections of the Ordinance identified violate the statutes, but the order appears to categorically prohibit the enforcement of those entire sections. This appeal ensued.
[7] We are asked to interpret two Indiana statutes, Indiana Code Section 5-2-18.2-3 ("Section 3") and Indiana Code Section 5-2-18.2-4 ("Section 4"). In his verified complaint, Nicholson describes these statutes as the "Information-Cooperation Mandate" and the "Full-Extent-Enforcement-Cooperation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Serbon v. City of E. Chi.
...judgment, a panel of this Court held that several portions of the Gary ordinance violated Chapter 18.2. See City of Gary v. Nicholson , 181 N.E.3d 390 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. granted. Our Supreme Court granted transfer in Nicholson and ordered that the plaintiffs’ case be dismissed for......
-
City of Gary v. Nicholson
...appealed, and the court of appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with instructions. City of Gary v. Nicholson , 181 N.E.3d 390, 395 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021). As for the entry of summary judgment for the plaintiffs, the court of appeals held some of the challenged sections vio......