Durango City Council plans to discuss “legal strategy” about potential litigation against the federal government on the subject of immigration enforcement.
Councilors voted 4-1 to approve the future executive session. Mayor Gilda Yazzie voted against the motion, asking why the subject shouldn’t be discussed in public.
Councilor Shirley Gonzales requested the closed-door meeting at the advice of City Attorney Mark Morgan for City Council to receive legal advice on options regarding possible litigation with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Other cities are exploring lawsuits against the federal government about municipal land use policies in regard to federal facilities and mask use in municipalities by federal immigration officers, among other subjects, she said.
Gonzales said an executive session would be the best approach to discussing legal strategy for the city of Durango.
“We know that perhaps there could be something that comes tomorrow regarding legal issues around the country. Things are changing constantly,” she said.
Councilors Jessika Loyer and Dave Woodruff were supportive of having the discussion, although Loyer was initially hesitant to do so in an executive session. Woodruff said he isn’t sure Morgan should lead the discussion because his area of focus is municipal law – not federal immigration law.
Yazzie said she doesn’t believe the discussion should be had in an executive session as opposed to on the dais in public.
“To join a lawsuit, don’t you need to have an injured party? And somebody’s going to go ahead and make a claim? We don’t have that now,” she said. “It’s a nice sentiment, but I don’t understand why we can’t just discuss it up here in the open public, being transparent, instead of going into an executive session.”
Morgan said it would be appropriate to discuss legal advice about potential litigation with the feds in an executive session, but if council chose to have the discussion publicly, that is a decision it could make.
“Councilor Woodruff is correct, I am not an expert in immigration law,” Morgan said. “But I am very proudly capable of being able to brief you guys on the general state of litigation involving Homeland Security and ICE.”
He echoed Gonzales’ sentiment that the landscape or status of legislation concerning immigration enforcement changes daily.
A Denver bill would prohibit law enforcement from concealing their identities with masks, but it may be “ceremonial” and easily ignored by ICE, Morgan said.
Denverite reported in January that proponents of that bill argue mask use by law enforcement hurts public trust and can result in fewer reported crimes as well as making it easier for law enforcement impostors to take advantage of unchecked anonymity.
But even though most Denver city councilors support the spirit of the bill, Denverite reported, they weren’t all sure passing it would be enforceable.
If passed, the bill would give police the authority to arrest and ticket law enforcement found to be in violation. But those could put police at risk of violating federal law for obstructing federal law enforcement, Denverite reported.
KDVR reported on Jan. 28 Denver also joined three dozen other cities and counties across the country in an amicus brief against the Trump administration for recent federal activities in Minneapolis, including those that resulted in the killings by federal officers of two 37-year-old residents one week apart.
Colorado Democrats approved a state bill in a committee hearing on Monday that would open immigration officers up to lawsuits for alleged constitutional violations, according to Colorado Newsline.
Gonzales referenced community organizing as well. She said in a text message to The Durango Herald she was referring to a “No Secret Police” movement for the city to adopt an ordinance prohibiting law enforcement from wearing masks on the job.
“Is it enforceable? Well, if there’s no law, then it’s certainly not enforceable,” Ted Wright, organizer and local attorney, said at an interest meeting at the Durango Community Recreation Center last month.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a law prohibiting law enforcement from wearing masks that took affect last month and is being challenged by the U.S. Department of Justice, which argues the restriction interferes with federal authority, National Public Radio reported.
Loyer noted the city’s Community and Cultural Relations Commission, which City Council charged with forming a task force to determine how the city can best support its immigrant community, is already engaged in similar conversations as the one suggested by Gonzales.
She said what gives her pause is whether the city attorney’s office has the capacity to join a lawsuit.
Morgan said joining a lawsuit is not “the heavy lifting part of a lawsuit.” Rather, it is crafting the arguments and filing the paperwork. When cities enjoin in a lawsuit, they’re often “shopping” for other jurisdictions to bring in, and they make it easy on those jurisdictions.
“I have experience doing that,” he said. “I would not ever recommend being the tip of the spear in a lawsuit because we don’t have the staff to do that and that could be exorbitantly expensive and make you a very easy target for someone like the federal government.”
cburney@durangoherald.com
