From the Arkansas Advocate:
The city of Fayetteville is violating a law prohibiting “sanctuary policy” and is therefore ineligible to receive discretionary funding administered by the state, according to an opinion released by the Arkansas attorney general Wednesday.
The opinion was requested by Rep. Kendon Underwood, a Cave Springs Republican who claimed in June that the city violated the state law after the mayor issued a news release clarifying the Fayetteville Police Department’s role in an Arkansas State Police traffic stop that involved federal immigration enforcement, the Fayetteville Flyer reported.
Underwood expressed his appreciation for the attorney general’s work and sent letters Wednesday to the governor and the Department of Finance and Administration’s secretary requesting they withhold all discretionary funds to the city of Fayetteville until it comes into compliance with state law, according to a news release. He also sent letters to the co-chairs of the Arkansas Legislative Council requesting the committee’s support.
“It is unfortunate that the city is jeopardizing its funding because of the radical left politics and posturing of the mayor, but the Legislature has spoken and we will not tolerate dangerous sanctuary city policies that make Arkansans less safe,” Underwood said. “I am hopeful that the mayor will reverse course, but until then I will do everything in my power to ensure the law is enforced and funding is withheld from Fayetteville.”
Mayor Molly Rawn sent a letter Wednesday to city council members and Fayetteville’s police chief clarifying that it’s the city’s policy “to fully comply” with all state laws, including the statute in question.
“The City of Fayetteville has never had a written policy that affirms, suggests, or implies the existence of a sanctuary policy,” Rawn said. “However, to avoid any misunderstanding, I want to make it unequivocally clear that my comments should not be interpreted as supporting or establishing a sanctuary policy in violation of A.C.A. § 14-1-103, either now or at any point in the future.”
Tension over immigration policy has heightened under the Trump administration whose crackdown on immigration has included an executive order to revoke federal funding to “sanctuary cities” and an effort to hire more U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.
In Arkansas, state lawmakers passed the Defense Against Criminal Illegals Act this spring which, among other things, expanded the state’s current ban on “sanctuary cities,” a term for municipalities that don’t coordinate with federal immigration authorities. The law, whose primary sponsor was Senate President Pro Tempore Bart Hester, R-Cave Springs, applies to counties, cities, unincorporated towns or “any other political subdivision of the state.”
Under the law, local governments can’t adopt policies that prohibit cooperation with federal agencies to verify a person’s immigration status, “grants to illegal immigrants the right to lawful presence or status” in violation of federal law, prevents law enforcement from asking about citizenship or immigration status, restricts cooperation with detainers or other requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or requires ICE to obtain a warrant or demonstrate more than probable cause before complying with detainers or other legal requests to maintain custody of immigrants or transfer their custody to ICE.
After receiving a complaint from an Arkansas resident or request from a state lawmaker, the attorney general must issue an opinion stating whether a local government violated the law. If a violation is determined, the local government is ineligible to receive discretionary funding provided by the state until the attorney general certifies the sanctuary policy is repealed or no longer in effect. Discretionary funding is not mandatory and refers to money that is provided through funds or grants administered by the state.
The law allows the local government to appeal the decision in Pulaski County Circuit Court.
In Wednesday’s opinion, Attorney General Tim Griffin said his office sent a letter to Fayetteville’s city attorney on June 27 requesting copies of city ordinances or policies related to the statute in question. While Griffin was provided with “numerous documents,” the most relevant was a statement from Rawn that indicated “FPD does not participate in civil immigration enforcement violations,” he said.
The Fayetteville Police Department received a request from Arkansas State Police related to a traffic stop near I-49 and Exit 64 on the morning of June 17, according to a news release from the city. A Fayetteville police sergeant responded and observed both ASP and ICE personnel, but had no further involvement and left the scene. Fayetteville PD had not been contacted by ICE or other agencies regarding immigration enforcement operations in the city, according to the release.
“I want to reaffirm clearly: The City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE in carrying out its agenda,” Rawn said in the release. “Our police department’s role is to keep our community safe, not to act as agents of immigration enforcement.”
Griffin wrote in his opinion that the mayor’s statement, which said it “reiterated the city’s position,” reflects a preexisting policy and that violates the state’s sanctuary policy law.
The attorney general’s office has exchanged four letters with the city (two sent and two received) seeking information about the city’s existing policies that are relevant to the law, Griffin said. The city believes its policies don’t violate state law or are relevant to the statute, but “that belief is mistaken,” he said.
“The City may submit evidence demonstrating that the sanctuary policy is no longer current or that exceptions have been made that would allow City employees to comply with the statute,” Griffin wrote. “If that evidence is submitted, the City will be eligible to receive the discretionary funds again.”
Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams argued in a June 18 letter to the mayor and city council addressing Underwood’s complaint that he did not believe Rawn’s statement violated the law. Williams wrote that Fayetteville “has long scrupulously followed and obeyed the sanctuary policies prohibited law,” but the law doesn’t require Fayetteville police officers to act as immigration enforcement agents.
Furthermore, Williams argued, state law does not require the city to “assist ICE in carrying out its agenda,” which includes many things including “searching for, arresting and detaining illegal immigrants.”
“Since the City of Fayetteville does not have knowledge of the illegal immigrant status of residents, nor do we have any city detention facilities where a suspected illegal immigrant might be housed and then transferred to ICE custody, the city cannot assist ICE in its agenda,” Williams wrote.
