Rokita v. Marté: Immigration Law Enforcement - Revision history

Chronically Dave at 21:53, 3 July 2025

2025-07-03T21:53:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:53, 3 July 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''2025-07-02''' Special judge Lucas Rudisill denies Marté's motion to dismiss the case. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-07-02-Rokita-versus-Marte-Ruling-against-dismissal.pdf copy of judge's order]]

	'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]		'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]

Chronically Dave at 17:36, 27 June 2025

2025-06-27T17:36:01Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:36, 27 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests a someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]		'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]

	'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]		'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]

Chronically Dave at 17:35, 27 June 2025

2025-06-27T17:35:45Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 27 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests an someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]		'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests a someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]

	'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]		'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]

Chronically Dave at 12:12, 27 June 2025

2025-06-27T12:12:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:12, 27 June 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''2025-06-24''' Marté files with the court a copy of the policy revised on June 10, 2025 to incorporate the requirements of a new state law that says if a law enforcement officer arrests an someone for a felony or misdemeanor and there is probable cause to believe that the person arrested is not lawfully present in the United States, the jail or detention facility must notify the county sheriff of that probable cause. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-06-24-Marte-Rokita-Immigration-Defendants-Notice-Regarding-amended-policy.pdf copy of court filing with amended policy]]

	'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]		'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]

Chronically Dave at 21:49, 4 May 2025

2025-05-04T21:49:51Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 4 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase ~~docke~~]t]		'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]

	'''2025-04-03''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]		'''2025-04-03''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

Chronically Dave at 21:49, 4 May 2025

2025-05-04T21:49:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:49, 4 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
			'''2025-05-03''' Hearing held in front of special judge Lucas Rudisill. Rudisill sets deadline of May 7, 2025 to submit proposed orders. [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docke]t]

	'''2025-04-03''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]		'''2025-04-03''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

Chronically Dave at 21:45, 4 May 2025

2025-05-04T21:45:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:45, 4 May 2025
Line 19:		Line 19:
	'''2024-08-14''' Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf copy of statement]]		'''2024-08-14''' Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf copy of statement]]

	'''2024-07-11''' The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf copy of complaint]]		'''2024-07-11''' The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf copy of complaint]] [[https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase#/vw/SearchResults/eyJ2Ijp7Ik1vZGUiOiJCeUNhc2UiLCJDYXNlTnVtIjoiNTNDMDYtMjQwNy1QTC0wMDE3MzMiLCJDaXRlTnVtIjpudWxsLCJDcm9zc1JlZk51bSI6bnVsbCwiRmlyc3QiOm51bGwsIk1pZGRsZSI6bnVsbCwiTGFzdCI6bnVsbCwiQnVzaW5lc3MiOm51bGwsIkRvQlN0YXJ0IjpudWxsLCJEb0JFbmQiOm51bGwsIk9BTnVtIjpudWxsLCJCYXJOdW0iOm51bGwsIlNvdW5kRXgiOmZhbHNlLCJDb3VydEl0ZW1JRCI6OTIsIkNhdGVnb3JpZXMiOm51bGwsIkxpbWl0cyI6bnVsbCwiQWR2YW5jZWQiOnRydWUsIkFjdGl2ZUZsYWciOiJBbGwiLCJGaWxlU3RhcnQiOm51bGwsIkZpbGVFbmQiOm51bGwsIkNvdW50eUNvZGUiOm51bGx9fQ== link to MyCase docket]]

Chronically Dave at 21:18, 4 May 2025

2025-05-04T21:18:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:18, 4 May 2025
Line 15:		Line 15:
	'''2024-10-04''' Attorney General Todd Rokita, asks the court to exclude evidence provided by Sheriff Ruben Marté in support of Marté's motion to dismiss. The evidence includes the previous version of the sheriff's policy, and the AG's annotated version of the new policy. The State argues that outside evidence should not be considered for a motion to dismiss. It contends the court should not change the motion into a request for summary judgment yet, as this case is new and discovery hasn't happened, preventing the state from fully responding. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-04-Rokita-motion-to-exclude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]		'''2024-10-04''' Attorney General Todd Rokita, asks the court to exclude evidence provided by Sheriff Ruben Marté in support of Marté's motion to dismiss. The evidence includes the previous version of the sheriff's policy, and the AG's annotated version of the new policy. The State argues that outside evidence should not be considered for a motion to dismiss. It contends the court should not change the motion into a request for summary judgment yet, as this case is new and discovery hasn't happened, preventing the state from fully responding. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-04-Rokita-motion-to-exclude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	'''2024-09-04''' Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to either dismiss the lawsuit or deliver a summary judgment in his favor. The sheriff argues the attorney general's complaint is too vague about how the MCSO-12 policy violates state law. He contends that state law (Section 3) is misinterpreted by the Attorney General, arguing it only applies to sharing information, not limiting other actions. The sheriff contends his policy follows the law while allowing necessary discretion. Section 3 is about impermissible restrictions on communicating or cooperating with federal officials. Section 4 is about impermissible limitations on the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-09-04-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Memo-in-Support-of-Marte-Motion-to-Dismiss-For-Filing.pdf copy of court filing]]		'''2024-09-04''' Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to either dismiss the lawsuit or deliver a summary judgment in his favor. The sheriff argues the attorney general's complaint is too vague about how the MCSO-12 policy violates state law. He contends that state law (Section 3) is misinterpreted by the Attorney General, arguing it only applies to sharing information, not limiting other actions. The sheriff contends his policy follows the law while allowing necessary discretion. [https://iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/5#5-2-18.2-3 Section 3] is about impermissible restrictions on communicating or cooperating with federal officials. [https://iga.in.gov/laws/2024/ic/titles/5#5-2-18.2-4 Section 4] is about impermissible limitations on the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-09-04-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Memo-in-Support-of-Marte-Motion-to-Dismiss-For-Filing.pdf copy of court filing]]

	'''2024-08-14''' Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf copy of statement]]		'''2024-08-14''' Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf copy of statement]]

	'''2024-07-11''' The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf copy of complaint]]		'''2024-07-11''' The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf copy of complaint]]

Chronically Dave at 19:22, 4 May 2025

2025-05-04T19:22:57Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:22, 4 May 2025
Line 1:		Line 1:
	2025-04-03 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2025-04-03''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2025-03-20 Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a memorandum opposing Sheriff Marté's request to dismiss the revised lawsuit. The state argues the amended complaint clearly explains how the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law Section 3. The State contends Section 3 is broader than just sharing information and includes cooperation. The State also defends the court's prior finding that the claim regarding Section 4 is sufficient and asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-03-20-Rokita-opposing-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2025-03-20''' Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a memorandum opposing Sheriff Marté's request to dismiss the revised lawsuit. The state argues the amended complaint clearly explains how the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law Section 3. The State contends Section 3 is broader than just sharing information and includes cooperation. The State also defends the court's prior finding that the claim regarding Section 4 is sufficient and asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-03-20-Rokita-opposing-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2025-02-28 Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to dismiss the State's revised lawsuit. He argues the amended complaint still doesn't show how his policy (MCSO-012) violates state law Section 3, stating the policy incorporates Section 3 and follows the law. The Sheriff argues Section 3 only covers sharing information. He believes the Section 3 claims should be dismissed permanently and asks the court to revisit its prior ruling on Section 4. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-02-28-Marte-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2025-02-28''' Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to dismiss the State's revised lawsuit. He argues the amended complaint still doesn't show how his policy (MCSO-012) violates state law Section 3, stating the policy incorporates Section 3 and follows the law. The Sheriff argues Section 3 only covers sharing information. He believes the Section 3 claims should be dismissed permanently and asks the court to revisit its prior ruling on Section 4. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-02-28-Marte-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2025-01-09 Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a revised lawsuit against Sheriff Marté and his office. This amended complaint follows the court's previous order allowing the state to refine its claims. It again alleges the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law (Chapter 5-2-18.2), including both Section 3 and Section 4. The State includes additional details regarding the Section 3 violation, as permitted by the court. The State continues to ask the court to order the Sheriff to comply with the law. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-01-09-Rokita-First-Amended-Complaint-to-Compel-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2025-01-09''' Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a revised lawsuit against Sheriff Marté and his office. This amended complaint follows the court's previous order allowing the state to refine its claims. It again alleges the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law (Chapter 5-2-18.2), including both Section 3 and Section 4. The State includes additional details regarding the Section 3 violation, as permitted by the court. The State continues to ask the court to order the Sheriff to comply with the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-01-09-Rokita-First-Amended-Complaint-to-Compel-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-12-19 The court issues an order on Sheriff Marté's motion to dismiss the initial lawsuit. The court finds the state adequately presented a claim regarding Section 4, but not for Section 3, noting the Sheriff's policy incorporates Section 3. The court allows the State to amend its complaint regarding the Section 3 claim and potentially supplement the Section 4 claim. The court also confirms it didn't review outside evidence and denies summary judgment based on the idea that it would be too early to grant a summary judgement. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-12-19-order-on-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-12-19''' The court issues an order on Sheriff Marté's motion to dismiss the initial lawsuit. The court finds the state adequately presented a claim regarding Section 4, but not for Section 3, noting the Sheriff's policy incorporates Section 3. The court allows the State to amend its complaint regarding the Section 3 claim and potentially supplement the Section 4 claim. The court also confirms it didn't review outside evidence and denies summary judgment based on the idea that it would be too early to grant a summary judgement. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-12-19-order-on-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-11-20 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief supporting his request to dismiss the lawsuit or grant summary judgment, responding to the State's arguments. He maintains that his policy (MCSO-012) fully complies with state law, arguing the Attorney General is misinterpreting Section 3. The Sheriff asserts his policy maintains the required discretion and aligns with a prior view from the Indiana Court of Appeals. He also contends the state had enough opportunity to address his summary judgment request. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-11-20-Marte-Reply-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-11-20''' Sheriff Marté files a reply brief supporting his request to dismiss the lawsuit or grant summary judgment, responding to the State's arguments. He maintains that his policy (MCSO-012) fully complies with state law, arguing the Attorney General is misinterpreting Section 3. The Sheriff asserts his policy maintains the required discretion and aligns with a prior view from the Indiana Court of Appeals. He also contends the state had enough opportunity to address his summary judgment request. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-11-20-Marte-Reply-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-10-22 Sheriff Marté files a response opposing the Attorney General's request to exclude evidence from consideration of the Sheriff's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Sheriff argues the Attorney General's request goes against court rules about considering outside information for summary judgment. He states the Attorney General had enough time and opportunity to respond with their own evidence or ask for discovery but did not follow the proper procedure. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-22-Marte-Opposition-to-Motion-to-exlude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-10-22''' Sheriff Marté files a response opposing the Attorney General's request to exclude evidence from consideration of the Sheriff's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Sheriff argues the Attorney General's request goes against court rules about considering outside information for summary judgment. He states the Attorney General had enough time and opportunity to respond with their own evidence or ask for discovery but did not follow the proper procedure. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-22-Marte-Opposition-to-Motion-to-exlude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-10-04 Attorney General Todd Rokita, asks the court to exclude evidence provided by Sheriff Ruben Marté in support of Marté's motion to dismiss. The evidence includes the previous version of the sheriff's policy, and the AG's annotated version of the new policy. The State argues that outside evidence should not be considered for a motion to dismiss. It contends the court should not change the motion into a request for summary judgment yet, as this case is new and discovery hasn't happened, preventing the state from fully responding. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-04-Rokita-motion-to-exclude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-10-04''' Attorney General Todd Rokita, asks the court to exclude evidence provided by Sheriff Ruben Marté in support of Marté's motion to dismiss. The evidence includes the previous version of the sheriff's policy, and the AG's annotated version of the new policy. The State argues that outside evidence should not be considered for a motion to dismiss. It contends the court should not change the motion into a request for summary judgment yet, as this case is new and discovery hasn't happened, preventing the state from fully responding. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-04-Rokita-motion-to-exclude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-09-04 Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to either dismiss the lawsuit or deliver a summary judgment in his favor. The sheriff argues the attorney general's complaint is too vague about how the MCSO-12 policy violates state law. He contends that state law (Section 3) is misinterpreted by the Attorney General, arguing it only applies to sharing information, not limiting other actions. The sheriff contends his policy follows the law while allowing necessary discretion. Section 3 is about impermissible restrictions on communicating or cooperating with federal officials. Section 4 is about impermissible limitations on the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-09-04-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Memo-in-Support-of-Marte-Motion-to-Dismiss-For-Filing.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-09-04''' Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to either dismiss the lawsuit or deliver a summary judgment in his favor. The sheriff argues the attorney general's complaint is too vague about how the MCSO-12 policy violates state law. He contends that state law (Section 3) is misinterpreted by the Attorney General, arguing it only applies to sharing information, not limiting other actions. The sheriff contends his policy follows the law while allowing necessary discretion. Section 3 is about impermissible restrictions on communicating or cooperating with federal officials. Section 4 is about impermissible limitations on the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-09-04-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Memo-in-Support-of-Marte-Motion-to-Dismiss-For-Filing.pdf copy of court filing]]

	2024-08-14 Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-08-14''' Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf copy of statement]]

	2024-07-11 The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. ~~<nowiki>~~https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf~~</nowiki>~~		'''2024-07-11''' The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. [[https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf copy of complaint]]

Chronically Dave: Created page with "2025-04-03 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be d..."

2025-05-04T19:18:15Z

Created page with "2025-04-03 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be d..."

New page

2025-04-03 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief to support his request to dismiss the revised lawsuit, responding to the state's opposition. The Sheriff repeats his argument that his policy (MCSO-012) incorporates and fully complies with state law Section 3. He defends his interpretation that Section 3 only covers sharing specific immigration status information. The Sheriff maintains there is no conflict between his policy and the law and requests the Section 3 claims be dismissed permanently. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-04-03-Reply-to-Rokita-on-Motion-to-Dismiss-First-Amended-Complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2025-03-20 Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a memorandum opposing Sheriff Marté's request to dismiss the revised lawsuit. The state argues the amended complaint clearly explains how the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law Section 3. The State contends Section 3 is broader than just sharing information and includes cooperation. The State also defends the court's prior finding that the claim regarding Section 4 is sufficient and asks the court to deny the motion to dismiss. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-03-20-Rokita-opposing-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2025-02-28 Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to dismiss the State's revised lawsuit. He argues the amended complaint still doesn't show how his policy (MCSO-012) violates state law Section 3, stating the policy incorporates Section 3 and follows the law. The Sheriff argues Section 3 only covers sharing information. He believes the Section 3 claims should be dismissed permanently and asks the court to revisit its prior ruling on Section 4. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-02-28-Marte-memorandum-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-first-amended-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2025-01-09 Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a revised lawsuit against Sheriff Marté and his office. This amended complaint follows the court's previous order allowing the state to refine its claims. It again alleges the Sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) violates state law (Chapter 5-2-18.2), including both Section 3 and Section 4. The State includes additional details regarding the Section 3 violation, as permitted by the court. The State continues to ask the court to order the Sheriff to comply with the law. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2025-01-09-Rokita-First-Amended-Complaint-to-Compel-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2024-12-19 The court issues an order on Sheriff Marté's motion to dismiss the initial lawsuit. The court finds the state adequately presented a claim regarding Section 4, but not for Section 3, noting the Sheriff's policy incorporates Section 3. The court allows the State to amend its complaint regarding the Section 3 claim and potentially supplement the Section 4 claim. The court also confirms it didn't review outside evidence and denies summary judgment based on the idea that it would be too early to grant a summary judgement. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-12-19-order-on-complaint-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2024-11-20 Sheriff Marté files a reply brief supporting his request to dismiss the lawsuit or grant summary judgment, responding to the State's arguments. He maintains that his policy (MCSO-012) fully complies with state law, arguing the Attorney General is misinterpreting Section 3. The Sheriff asserts his policy maintains the required discretion and aligns with a prior view from the Indiana Court of Appeals. He also contends the state had enough opportunity to address his summary judgment request. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-11-20-Marte-Reply-in-support-of-motion-to-dismiss-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2024-10-22 Sheriff Marté files a response opposing the Attorney General's request to exclude evidence from consideration of the Sheriff's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Sheriff argues the Attorney General's request goes against court rules about considering outside information for summary judgment. He states the Attorney General had enough time and opportunity to respond with their own evidence or ask for discovery but did not follow the proper procedure. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-22-Marte-Opposition-to-Motion-to-exlude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2024-10-04 Attorney General Todd Rokita, asks the court to exclude evidence provided by Sheriff Ruben Marté in support of Marté's motion to dismiss. The evidence includes the previous version of the sheriff's policy, and the AG's annotated version of the new policy. The State argues that outside evidence should not be considered for a motion to dismiss. It contends the court should not change the motion into a request for summary judgment yet, as this case is new and discovery hasn't happened, preventing the state from fully responding. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-10-04-Rokita-motion-to-exclude-evidence-53C06-2407-PL-001733.pdf</nowiki>

2024-09-04 Sheriff Ruben Marté files a memorandum supporting his request to either dismiss the lawsuit or deliver a summary judgment in his favor. The sheriff argues the attorney general's complaint is too vague about how the MCSO-12 policy violates state law. He contends that state law (Section 3) is misinterpreted by the Attorney General, arguing it only applies to sharing information, not limiting other actions. The sheriff contends his policy follows the law while allowing necessary discretion. Section 3 is about impermissible restrictions on communicating or cooperating with federal officials. Section 4 is about impermissible limitations on the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-09-04-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Memo-in-Support-of-Marte-Motion-to-Dismiss-For-Filing.pdf</nowiki>

2024-08-14 Sheriff Ruben Marté releases a statement addressing the lawsuit filed by Attorney General Rokita. He confirms the suit challenges the Monroe County Sheriff's Office policy (MCSO-12), particularly regarding not holding people solely on immigration detainer requests. Sheriff Marté asserts his policy balances enforcing laws with respecting constitutional rights. He declares his office is prepared to strongly defend the policy in court. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-08-13-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Statement-from-Sheriff-Marte-Statement-on-Rokita-Lawsuit-8-13-24.pdf</nowiki>

2024-07-11 The State of Indiana's Attorney General Todd Rokita, files a lawsuit against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté and his office. The complaint claims that the sheriff's policy (MCSO-12) breaks state law (Indiana Code Chapter 5-2-18.2), specifically sections dealing with immigration enforcement and cooperation with federal officials. The State claims the Sheriff knowingly violates the law by maintaining the policy. The State asks the court to order the Sheriff to stop violating the law. <nowiki>https://bloomdocs.org/wp-content/uploads/simple-file-list/2024-07-11-53C06-2407-PL-001733-Complaint-to-Compel.pdf</nowiki>