Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287G Legislation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County attorney explains new state '287G' legislation and reports recent litigation updates
Summary
The county attorney told the steering committee that recently enacted state legislation affects local sheriff's ability to enter agreements under '287G' and reported that two county cases were recently resolved or dismissed after summary judgment.
The Rutherford County county attorney briefed the steering committee on recently enacted state legislation referred to in the meeting as "287G," saying the general assembly has constrained the ability of local governments, particularly sheriff’s offices, to enter memoranda of agreement with federal officials in certain immigration-related situations.
"The general assembly recently enacted legislation dealing with these types of agreements with the federal government ... and any sheriff's department that has a memorandum of agreement is required to accept and honor those provisions pursuant to state law," the county attorney said, summarizing the statute's practical effect on local agencies.
The county attorney also provided updates on pending litigation involving the county. He said the matter David Dudton v. Rutherford County was recently resolved after negotiations with the plaintiff's counsel. In another case, Cameron James v. Andrew McCullen, the county filed a motion for summary judgment and the court granted it, dismissing the claims against the county in full: "We filed a motion for summary judgment ... and the court has agreed with that and has dismissed the case against the county in full," the attorney said.
The briefing was procedural: the chair asked commissioners to review the litigation list and raise any matters they wished to discuss. Commissioners did not direct additional action in the meeting on 287G beyond the informational briefing.
The county attorney's remarks were presented as a summary of enacted state law and recent case outcomes; the committee did not take a formal vote on policy changes tied to the statute during the session.
