Washtenaw County board directs counsel to explore legal options after public outcry over DHS data request

The Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners voted late Wednesday to direct corporation counsel to explore legal options in response to a subpoena and notice of inspection from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, after more than two hours of public comment urging the board not to share county-held personal records of residents.

Public pressure mounted at a working-session public-participation period in which dozens of callers and speakers urged the board to resist the federal request. Supporters of the county’s municipal ID program, immigrant-rights groups, area religious leaders and medical and legal professionals told commissioners the data sought could put residents at risk.

“Thank you for taking this subpoena and for considering all the things that you are considering — what your legal obligations are, and what your human rights obligations are,” said Mary Anne Peron, an Ann Arbor resident, during the public comment period. “We will not consent to what they are asking for, and we will show up and stand with our immigrant neighbors.”

The board’s motion, introduced publicly by Commissioner Hodge, directed corporation counsel to examine the county’s options for responding to the DHS request and was adopted by roll-call vote after a closed-session legal brief. The resolution text presented at the meeting instructs counsel “to explore options to respond to the subpoena and notice of inspection from the Department of Homeland Security.” The motion passed; commissioners recorded their votes during the late-night roll call.

Speakers who addressed the board included health and social-service providers, University of Michigan law students, faith leaders, and county employees. “If one of us is not safe, none of us are safe,” said Amy Procek of Ann Arbor, summarizing a common theme of the remarks.

Sheriff Alicia Dyer, participating online, said the sheriff’s office “are not collaborating with ICE,” and expressed support for county employees and community members who had contacted her office in the days before the meeting.

Commissioners did not announce a public timetable for any final legal decision at the meeting; the board recessed into a closed session for legal consultation earlier in the evening and returned afterward to approve the resolution directing counsel to pursue the legal review. The board made clear that the county will balance legal obligations with concerns raised by residents and county employees.

The action follows an intense national debate over federal immigration enforcement and local records-sharing. County officials said they would continue to provide updates as corporation counsel reports back and as any further legal steps are identified.

The board’s resolution and subsequent roll-call vote were the principal formal outcomes tied to the public comments; commissioners also adopted other routine items on the agenda later in the meeting.