Resident warns trustees of potential lawsuits tied to county’s ICE contract
Loading...
Summary
Canfield resident Chris Harris told trustees a federal judge found at least one detention unlawful and that the detainee’s attorney plans to sue ICE, federal authorities and the county jail, and he raised concerns that ICE has shifted detainee health-care responsibility to the county.
Chris Harris, a Canfield resident who spoke during public comment, told Mahoning County trustees on Nov. 13 that he expects litigation tied to the county’s contract involving ICE detainees.
Harris said a man who had been held at NEOCC and in the Mahoning County jail for 75 days had “his day in court” before a federal judge, and that the judge “demanded he be released immediately and said that his imprisonment was unlawful.” Harris said the man’s attorney told him last week that he will file suit naming ICE, the federal government and the county jail. “So right now, there will be a lawsuit against us, and that will be coming,” Harris said.
Harris also told the board the same lawyer represents three women in the county jail who have been detained for more than 70 days, and he said the attorney is watching those cases closely. He alleged that ICE had placed responsibility for improving detainee health care on the county jail, saying in the meeting, “ICE has put that onto the county jail where they’re located. So now we are responsible.”
Why it matters: If a court finds county operations or contracted custodial procedures deficient, the county could face lawsuits, potential damages or required operational changes; Harris framed the concerns as both civil and operational obligations tied to detainee medical care and costs.
What the transcript shows and what it does not: Harris provided specific detention durations (75 days; more than 70 days for three women) and attributed an immediate-release order to a federal judge; the transcript does not record a response from county officials in this excerpt, nor does it show any formal legal filing at the time of the meeting. The attorney referenced by Harris was not identified by name in the meeting.
The board did not record a response in the provided excerpt. Harris gave his address for the record as 8844 Sits Canoe Road during the comment period. The transcript also shows a prior related public comment three weeks earlier referenced by Harris (speaker Devlin), indicating the ICE contract has been a recurring concern among commenters.
Next steps: No motion or formal county action related to the ICE contract is recorded in the provided excerpt; the comment signals a potential outside legal action and puts the issue back on the public record for trustees to consider.
