Lawmakers consider bill that would allow Minnesotans to sue federal officials over civil ...

ST. PAUL — As concerns grow over the constitutionality of federal immigration enforcement agents’ treatment of Minnesotans, DLF representatives are attempting to pass a bill that would hold them accountable.

The House Judiciary Finance and Civil Law committee heard a bill, HF 3477, authored by House DFL floor leader Rep. Jamie Long, DFL-Minneapolis, that would create a cause of action for the violation of civil rights under color of law.

ADVERTISEMENT

Color of law is defined as “actions taken under the appearance of legal authority,” and is often used to refer to government officials who abuse power under the guise of it being within their authoritative power.

The bill, also known as the Universal Constitutional Remedies Act, would essentially allow individuals to sue law enforcement officers for violating their U.S. or state constitutional rights.

Long stressed the need for this bill, noting that “many constitutional violations by federal actors fall through the cracks and don’t lead to accountability.” He noted that the bill would mirror legislation that has been in place for local and state actors since 1874, expanding it to include federal actors.

John Boehler, policy counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, described constitutional violations by federal immigration enforcement agents in Minnesota since the beginning of Operation Metro Surge, claiming that six out of the 10 Bill of Rights amendments have been violated in the crackdown.

Committee Co-Chair Rep. Tina Liebling, DFL-Rochester, expressed concerns about the lack of outrage over the issue.

“It just strikes me that here we are sitting quietly in this conference room, in this committee, and hearing the words about what's happening … it’s absolutely chilling. And hearing you all talk about it in these calm, quiet words, there’s almost a disconnect there,” she said. “Because this is the core of our country. This is what we all depend on, this is what we call America, is that we have these rights. And the violation of them is just absolutely stunning.”

Some Republicans expressed concerns over the bill’s requirements — for example, that it would allow individuals to sue government officials up to six years after the violation occurred.

ADVERTISEMENT

Rep. Peggy Scott, R-Andover, proposed an amendment to the six-year lookback allowed in the bill, but it failed to pass.

“I hesitate to go down this road of making law that’s retroactive in nature,” she said.

Liebling countered: “The unreliable, unprecedented violation of civil rights in this state over the last few months, to not have this be retroactive, to me would be a travesty.”

Scott also shared concerns that there would be constitutional cases against the law, claiming that it violates the Supremacy Clause, which allows federal law to take precedence over state laws if they are in conflict.

“One of the things that your members were talking about is that we want to avoid situations where there are going to be constitutional challenges because it’s expensive for the taxpayer,” she said.

Long emphasized his efforts to ensure that the bill is constitutional, noting that it would apply equally to all actors, not just immigration enforcement, as some states have done.

On the House floor Wednesday, the bill was re-referred to the House State and Local Government Finance and Policy Committee.