Dear IMLA Immigration Working Group: A member flagged the following issue that we have previously briefly discussed: ICE has uploaded hundreds of thousands of individuals with outstanding ICE administrative warrants into NCIC and local law enforcement is coming across individuals during their routine policing for whom they have this ICE hit. I'm curious how this is being handled. I'm wondering if under 8 USC sec. 1373, police departments can't tell the officers to not contact ICE when they come across an individual with a hit? And then I'm wondering if the advice would then be for LEOs to contact ICE when they come across an individual with a hit? But if there's no other basis to detain the individual, I worry about a fourth amendment issue in detaining someone so that ICE can be contacted and advice obtained. The member would like to raise this on our next call (which is on 5/14 at 2 pm eastern) but was also hoping to chat with anyone who has insight into these issues before then. If you'd be willing to chat with the member, please contact me at akarras@imla.org<mailto:akarras@imla.org> and I'll put you in touch. I do think this is a good topic for discussion for our call on 5/14 so we'll do that either way. Additionally, I believe I had mentioned that the San Francisco / Santa Clara County coalition had filed a motion to enforce the PI in San Francisco v. Trump (this was the Executive Order litigation involving sanctuary jurisdictions). The court held a hearing on that motion on 5/8 and per the docket has taken the motion under advisement. I am attaching the motion here. The motion calls out the newest Executive Order "Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens", which as you know, threatens to withhold all federal funding from any "sanctuary jurisdiction." The motion argues that "Defendants cannot circumvent the PI Order simply by promulgating the same unconstitutional directive through a differently numbered EO." The plaintiffs ask "that the Court enforce, or in the alternative, modify, its PI Order to prevent Defendants from withholding, freezing, or conditioning federal funds from Plaintiffs based on [the new EO] or any other materially similar directive to withhold, condition, or freeze federal funds to 'sanctuary' jurisdictions or jurisdictions with so-called 'sanctuary' policies." The motion papers set forth an email exchange between the plaintiffs and defendants whereby the defendants' counsel indicates they do not believe that the new EO is covered by the preliminary injunction because it "postdates the PI Order." But as the plaintiffs argue, the funding threat created by the new EO "effectively nullifies the protection provided by the PI Order." Also, I will be co-presenting another webinar with Professor Rick Su through the Local Government Legal Center on 5/19 at 1 pm eastern. Details about that webinar (as well as others), can be found here: https://imla.org/webinar-schedule/. You do need to register. This webinar will be high level and geared toward both local elected officials and local government attorneys. Thanks, Amanda [logo]<https://imla.org/> [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> Amanda Karras (she/her) Executive Director / General Counsel International Municipal Lawyers Association P: (202) 466-5424 x7116 D: (202) 742-1018 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 Plan Ahead! See IMLA's upcoming events<https://imla.org/events/>, calls and programming.