Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fullerton council votes to file amicus brief after hours of public comment urging support for Perdomo v. Noem
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment from faith leaders, students and residents recounting ICE raids and family separations, the Fullerton City Council reported it voted in closed session to file an amicus brief coordinating with other cities in the Perdomo v. Noem litigation.
Fullerton City Council on Aug. 19 said it would file an amicus brief and coordinate with other cities in litigation challenging recent immigration‑enforcement practices, after dozens of residents and faith leaders urged the council to back the case.
Speakers at the closed‑session public comment period told personal stories of raids, job losses and children afraid to attend school. Pastor Jason Phillips said the lawsuit is “not only about law, it’s about love,” and asked the council to "stand alongside those who feel that right now.” Vanessa Estrella, a Fullerton School District trustee, said at least 13 families reported they had left the country over the summer and told the council that students and families were too afraid to send children to school.
The City Attorney reported at the regular‑session reopening that the council "voted to file an amicus brief and coordinate with other cities." City officials did not provide a roll‑call vote during the report; the action was described as the formal outcome of the closed‑session discussion and will be reported out, the attorney said.
Supporters asked the council for additional measures. Laura Manchester Cook urged an ordinance to require agents to identify themselves, wear cameras and remove masks, and for funding for mutual‑aid and legal services. Several speakers asked the council to take either plaintiff status or an amicus role; others pressed for public voting on litigation in open session.
Council members did not immediately indicate further ordinance actions at the meeting; the city attorney told the public that any reportable final action would be made when the council reconvened in open session.
What's next: The city will coordinate with partner cities on the amicus brief, and the city attorney said that if there is anything reportable from the closed session it will be announced at the next regular meeting.
