Iowa Attorney General Files Lawsuit Against Sheriff Over Immigration Law

News Summary

Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird has initiated legal action against Winneshiek County and Sheriff Dan Marx for alleged violations of immigration cooperation laws. The lawsuit, filed in Polk County District Court, accuses the sheriff of discouraging collaboration with federal immigration authorities through public statements, including a controversial Facebook post. The case raises important questions about local law enforcement’s role in immigration enforcement and may have significant financial implications for the county.

Iowa Attorney General Takes Aim at Local Sheriff Over Immigration Law Violation

In a dramatic move that has sparked controversy, Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird has filed a lawsuit against Winneshiek County and its sheriff, Dan Marx, for allegedly violating the state’s immigration cooperation law. This lawsuit was officially lodged on March 27, 2025, in Polk County District Court, signaling a robust challenge to local law enforcement’s handling of federal immigration requests.

The Allegations

The crux of the lawsuit revolves around claims that Sheriff Marx has actively discouraged cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by making public statements that undermine the agency’s authority. Specifically, Bird alleges that a Facebook post made by the sheriff on February 4, 2025, violates Iowa Code Chapter 27A. This legislation makes it illegal for public officials to dissuade community cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts.

Facebook Post Sparks Legal Action

In his Facebook post, Sheriff Marx delineated between “valid” judicial warrants and other ICE detainer requests he deemed unconstitutional. He asserted that many federal detainers are issued without sufficient information or judicial oversight, which Bird maintains is a misleading and incorrect assertion. Despite the sheriff’s negative characterization, the lawsuit notes that he had complied with all ICE detainer requests since November 26, 2018.

Governor’s Involvement and Investigation Findings

The situation escalated when Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds lodged a complaint concerning Marx’s Facebook post, prompting the Attorney General’s investigation. After thorough review, the investigation concluded that the sheriff’s comments indeed compromised the law’s intent and contributed to a culture of reluctance towards cooperating with immigration enforcement.

Attempts at Resolution

Before resorting to legal actions, Bird’s office sought to give Sheriff Marx the opportunity to retract his statements with specific language for a correction on his Facebook page. Although Marx’s office ultimately deleted the original post, it failed to publish the proposed retraction, raising questions about his adherence to legal obligations.

The Stakes for Winneshiek County

Bird’s lawsuit seeks not only to declare Winneshiek County ineligible for state funding but also highlights potentially severe financial consequences for the county’s budget. The legal action has the potential to strip the county of crucial state resources, which could have significant implications for local operations and services.

Mixed Community Reactions

The community’s reaction to the lawsuit has been decidedly mixed. While some locals support Sheriff Marx’s stance on immigration, viewing him as a guardian of civil liberties, others stand firmly behind Bird, advocating for strict adherence to Iowa’s immigration laws. The state has moved to eradicate “sanctuary” policies, which were banned through Chapter 27A back in 2018, further complicating the landscape of immigration enforcement in Iowa.

What Lies Ahead

As of now, Sheriff Marx has not filed a response to the lawsuit, leaving many questions about his next moves and the legal ramifications for his office. If Bird’s lawsuit prevails, it could set a notable precedent regarding the enforcement of copyright laws in local jurisdictions and reshape the dynamic between state and federal authorities in immigration matters.

Conclusion

As the legal battle unfolds, the broader implications of this case will likely reverberate throughout Iowa’s counties, highlighting the deeply contentious nature of immigration enforcement. Bird’s office continues to emphasize the need for law enforcement officials to uphold existing laws and maintain cooperation with federal authorities. The outcome of this case may not only affect the financial stability of Winneshiek County but could also serve as a watershed moment in Iowa’s immigration policy future.