Faith Communities to Submit Amicus Brief in Support of Sanctuary

UPDATE: On February 26, 2021, the Amicus Brief was submitted to the Supreme Court! You can read it here.

***

The ACLU of Louisiana filed a cert petition to the Supreme Court in a case concerning an immigrant who has lived in sanctuary in a Detroit church since early 2018. Mr. Rranxburgaj’s wife has advanced multiple sclerosis and is unable to care for herself – she told her therapist that she would commit suicide if her husband was deported. After ICE refused to adjudicate his stay-of-removal application (much like they have done in the case of Alex Garcia and others living in sanctuary), Mr. Rranxburgaj took his family to the Central United Methodist Church to seek sanctuary in order to prevent his wife’s premature death. This recent article highlights his story.

The lower courts decided that federal courts cannot review ICE actions. This means that ICE is not accountable to the courts. There is no “check and balance” for the hateful and even unlawful behaviors of this agency carried out by its agents.

As communities of faith, we disagree! We know that ICE must be held accountable for the trauma, harm and violence they cause in our communities. For many, our faith obligates us to respond in a multitude of ways when the governmental systems that are supposed to prevent this oppression from happening are actually serving to maintain it. One such response has been to offer our congregations as protection from deportation through sanctuary.

As attorneys request that the Supreme Court hear Mr. Rranxburgaj’s case, communities of faith have an opportunity to make our voices heard by submitting an amicus brief, often called a “friend of the court” brief.

What does a “cert petition” do?

According to the Procedures of the Supreme Court: “Parties who are not satisfied with the decision of a lower court must petition the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their case. The primary means to petition the court for review is to ask it to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a request that the Supreme Court order a lower court to send up the record of the case for review.” The petition filed on Jan. 26 was the formal request to the Supreme Court asking it to grant a writ of certiorari.

What’s the purpose of this amicus brief?

This brief gives communities of faith an opportunity to tell the Supreme Court that ICE does not reign supreme in the US, that their actions can be reviewed by the courts.

Who is eligible to sign on?

The amicus brief seeks signees that are organizations, congregations, or agencies that identify as faith-based, work with sanctuary efforts, or have some other connection to religious institutions. Please note that all signatories will be named in the brief; anonymity will not move the court in this situation.

This is not a space for individual signees. If you’re an individual, you can work to get your congregation involved and/or sign Alex’s petition and other efforts to stand with those in sanctuary.

What is the process and timeline?

The case was filed on January 26. There is a 30-day deadline to file amicus briefs, so this brief will be filed before February 26, 2021. As such, here is the process:

  1. Feb. 1-7: Gather signatures of potentially interested parties

    • Share information about the case and the amicus brief

    • Interested parties complete online form

  2. Feb. 8-12: Review amicus brief

    • Attorneys complete draft of the amicus brief

    • Draft is shared with potentially interested parties

    • Proposed edits/revisions submitted via Google Doc on this page [insert link] OR emailed to amicus@ifcla.net

    • Deadline to submit revisions: 12PM NOON CST, Friday Feb. 12

  3. Feb. 12-18: Final Edits reviewed and consolidated by the “Amicus Edits Team”

    • Final draft submitted to attorneys by 5pm CST on Sunday, Feb. 14

    • Feb. 15-18: Attorneys will review/revise and prepare final draft

  4. Feb. 18-22: Final Sign-on

    • Final draft of amicus brief shared with all “interested parties”

    • Final decision to sign-on submitted online (second form - yes/no only - no more edits [insert link]): DEADLINE TO SIGN ON TO AMICUS BRIEF IN FINAL FORM IS 11:59pm CST on Monday, Feb. 22

    • Final signatories list submitted to attorneys on Tuesday, Feb. 23

  5. Feb. 26: Amicus Brief filing deadline

Case History & Details

Mr. Rranxburgaj is the caretaker of his wife, who lives in the US and has advanced multiple sclerosis. ICE permitted them to live in the United States for nearly a decade, but in October 2017, ICE unexpectedly informed Mr. Rranxburgaj that he was being deported in January of the following year.

Mrs. Rranxburgaj cannot care for herself, and if her husband were deported, she had decided that she would commit suicide. To avoid his wife’s premature death, Mr. Rranxburgaj filed a stay-of-removal application. ICE did not adjudicate his application, so he and his family sought sanctuary in the Central United Methodist Church nine days before his scheduled deportation. ICE then declared him a “fugitive” and dismissed his stay application as moot.

In Rranxburgaj v. Nielsen (No. 19-2148, 6th Circuit), the Sixth Circuit held that the federal courts have no jurisdiction to review certain ICE actions, even if these actions stand at odds with ICE’s own regulations and with principles of separation of powers. That decision provides ICE with unchecked authority. It will cause irreparable harm to religious institutions and immigrants, many of whom may be forced to seek sanctuary as a result of unlawful ICE conduct (among other oppressions inherent in these systems).

Case Facts At-A-Glance

  • Mr. Rranxburgaj’s wife is dying of multiple sclerosis.

  • On December 8, 2017, he applied for a one-year stay of removal to continue caring for his ailing wife.

  • He had been ordered removed a decade earlier, but ICE had allowed both him and his wife to stay in the country.

  • That changed on October 3, 2017, when ICE asked Mr. Rranxburgaj to leave the country before the end of January 2018.

  • Mr. Rranxburgaj bought a ticket to leave the country on January 25, 2018; he had a final ICE appointment scheduled for January 17, 2018.

  • He did not attend his January 17, 2018 appointment because he had not yet received a decision on his stay application.

  • Instead, on January 16, 2018, Mr. Rranxburgaj sought sanctuary in a church less than three miles away from the nearest ICE field office.

  • At a press conference held at the church on January 16, 2018, he pleaded with ICE to understand that he sought sanctuary to prevent the premature death of his ailing wife.

  • The following day, ICE declared Mr. Rranxburgaj a “fugitive” and dismissed his stay application as “moot” – absent consideration of the factors outlined in 8 C.F.R. 241.6 (i.e., the regulation governing stay of removal orders).

Faith Organizations’ Amicus Brief, Rranxburgaj v. DHS: Tentative Outline

I. Question Presented

II. Identity/Interest of Co-Amici

III. Introduction

IV. Factual Background -- Basic details of Rranxburgaj case

V. Argument

  1. Sanctuary is a sacred duty for many faith traditions in the U.S.

    • Theological basis for providing sanctuary

    • Historical examples of sanctuary

    • Modern examples of sanctuary in the U.S.

  2. Openly seeking sanctuary does not make the seeker a fugitive, for purposes of denying access to courts under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(g) and treating the seeker as a fugitive impairs otherwise available defenses to deportation 

  3. Treating people seeking or living in sanctuary as fugitives eviscerates the sacred institution of sanctuary.

  4. Because of the importance of the institution of sanctuary, faith organization amici have a strong interest in this case and urge the Court to grant certiorari.