Washington County is in the spotlight as a federal petition pushes for compliance regarding immigration enforcement between state and federal laws.
On October 1, 2023, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Oregon and the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit in Oregon’s U.S. District Court.
This lawsuit aims to enforce subpoenas issued by Homeland Security Investigations to Washington, Marion, Clackamas, and Multnomah counties.
The subpoenas, served on July 31, requested records concerning individuals under court-ordered supervision by the Department of Community Corrections.
In response to Oregon’s Sanctuary Promise Act, which restricts law enforcement from aiding in immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant, Washington County declined to comply.
The federal inquiry covers 10 subpoenas related to individuals convicted of crimes who are subject to removal under the Immigration and Nationality Act.
Among these individuals is one currently under the jurisdiction of Washington County, who has a history of serious offenses including first-degree kidnapping and robbery.
Despite being a lawful U.S. resident, this individual faces potential deportation due to prior felony convictions.
Other individuals named in the subpoenas have convictions for serious crimes including manslaughter and sexual abuse.
Washington County spokesperson Philip Bransford stated that the county would not provide additional commentary as the case is now subject to litigation.
The conflict between local and federal laws has ignited a broader legal dispute across Oregon.
Marion County has also filed a lawsuit asking federal judges for clarity on how to respond to similar subpoenas.
The Marion County lawsuit emphasizes the ambiguity surrounding the relationship between Oregon’s Sanctuary law and the state’s Public Records law.
It highlights concerns that while the county may not comply with federal requests, public records laws could allow others, such as media outlets, to receive the requested information.
In supporting this discussion, the Salem Reporter announced it had obtained information related to the subpoenas, despite Marion County’s stance on not responding.
This ambiguity has prompted several counties in Oregon, including Clackamas, to urge state and federal authorities to clarify these legal conflicts.
Fifteen counties have co-signed a letter that seeks guidance regarding compliance with federal subpoenas while adhering to Oregon’s sanctuary policies.
Interestingly, Washington County has not joined this call, despite having its own subpoenas.
In August, the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association also reached out to both the Oregon and U.S. Attorneys General requesting clarity.
However, Washington County Sheriff Caprice Massey was among a handful of sheriffs who opted not to sign this letter, demonstrating local divisions on the issue.
It is significant that the current federal petition is directed at the Washington County Community Corrections Probation and Parole and its director, Nathan Gaoiran, rather than the Sheriff’s Office.
Massey clarified that the issue lies outside her jurisdiction as the community corrections operate independently from her department.
She expressed appreciation for the efforts of her counterparts in Marion County and the Oregon State Sheriffs’ Association to seek federal guidance on these complex legal questions.
Although the legal landscape appears fraught with conflict, Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield asserted in September that the matter has already been resolved by the Ninth Circuit.
He emphasized that there is no legal conflict between Oregon’s sanctuary law and federal immigration law.
According to Rayfield, Oregon’s sanctuary law has stood the test of time, functioning alongside numerous presidential administrations.
He pointed out that the law allows federal agencies the means to pursue individuals under a legal framework while assuring community safety.
The tensions between local law enforcement policies and federal immigration enforcement mark a significant chapter in Oregon’s ongoing legal discourse surrounding sanctuary laws.
As cases develop, the outcomes may further define the interaction between Oregon’s legal stance on immigration and federal enforcement priorities.
image source from：beavertonvalleytimes
