Advocates tell Mobile County Commission county-funded courts and sheriff’s office are violating constitutional rights, urge withholding funds

At its Oct. 27 meeting, the Mobile County Commission heard four public commenters who said county-funded courts and law enforcement are participating in unconstitutional practices and urged the commission to take action.

Taniwa Downing, who identified herself as a civil-rights litigator, told the commission she is preparing litigation "on behalf of more than 700,000 people" and said she has "approximately 17,000 criminal affidavits" from Alabama charging by information rather than by grand-jury indictment. Downing cited the Fifth Amendment’s clause requiring indictment by a grand jury and Title 18 of the U.S. Code in warning that continued county support of such practices could expose officials to legal consequences. "Please don't make me have to do that," she told the commissioners, adding that she had served the state attorney general and state supreme court justices with notice.

Commissioners asked what specific action the county should take. One commissioner asked whether Downing sought to defund the sheriff’s office; Downing said she did not want to put people in trouble but urged the county to "direct them to act in a constitutional manner" and warned that refusal to act after notice could create liability.

Melissa Harrah, a family advocate and paralegal, said county courts and Department of Human Resources caseworkers remove children without due process, citing delays in required hearings and saying some removals are carried out without valid court orders. Harrah referenced state House Bill 6 and "statute 20 six-one-six" as recognizing parental rights and urged the county to increase oversight of how state agencies exercise authority locally.

Jessica Saxton, another civil-rights advocate, said federal programs she named (Title IV‑D, IV‑E and IV‑B) "incentivize" removals and described those incentives as a pipeline that turns children into "financial commodities." Saxton said the portion of the county budget that contributes to court operations "facilitates" those removals and said commissioners were being served with affidavits alleging criminal conspiracy; she urged them to withhold county funding if necessary and said a short suspension of funding could force compliance with constitutional protections.

Sue Connor provided formal notice on constitutional grounds, arguing that state procedures that permit charging by information are inconsistent with the U.S. Constitution and asked the commission to review the Fifth Amendment clause she cited.

None of the four speakers asked the commission to take a specific, formal vote at the meeting; commissioners did not record an immediate policy change on the record. The clerk closed the public-comment period and the meeting proceeded to agenda items later in the session.

What was raised and why it matters: speakers framed their complaints as both constitutional and criminal concerns—arguing that county budget items and the county’s support for court and sheriff operations make local officials complicit if they ignore alleged unlawful charging or child-removal practices. Commissioners asked clarifying questions but took no immediate, recorded action on the claims.

Next steps: The commission continued with its agenda after public comment. The speakers said they had placed formal notices on the record and indicated they would pursue litigation or criminal complaints if the county did not act; no county response or formal investigation was recorded in the meeting minutes.