No standing

The lawsuit, filed in June, argued that Sheriff Harran lacked legal authority to enter into a 287(g) agreement without approval from the county’s Board of Commissioners. Plaintiffs, including Make the Road, NAACP Bucks County, Buxmont Unitarian Universalist Fellowship and Juan Navia, a Bucks County resident who claimed the arrangement violated Pennsylvania law and posed risks to civil rights and public trust.

However, in the 13-page decision, Judge Trauger found that the plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue the case at this stage because of a lack of harm from an agreement that is not yet in effect.

“Plaintiffs here are alleging injuries that are not immediate or substantial,” Trauger wrote. “Rather, in their complaint, they allege what are clearly only speculative future injuries based on speculative future events.”

The decision singled out Navia, who was asked to join the plaintiffs and argued in court that he and his family feared they would be subjected to an increase in racial profiling. During cross-examination, Navia said he did not know of anyone who was already affected.

Traugher wrote that Navia “baldly alleges that he is at an increased risk of profiling” but “alleges wholly subjective fears of possible future incidents, including racial profiling, warrantless searches and arrests.”

As a result, the judge said, “none of the Plaintiffs have proper standing to bring this action.”

On whose authority?

Traugher’s decision did find that the Bucks County Board of Commissioners had standing to pursue their challenge. In May, the board passed a resolution reaffirming its sole contractual authority and declaring the 287(g) agreement invalid, citing concerns about liability costs. Commissioners Diane Ellis‑Maresiglia and Bob Harvie supported the resolution; Commissioner Gene DiGirolamo dissented, voicing confidence in Harran’s approach.

The commissioners separately challenged Harran’s agreement with ICE, arguing that Harran was legally required under state law to seek approval from the county commissioners before entering into binding agreements on behalf of the county and that the sheriff cannot unilaterally bind the county to a federal partnership.

However, the judge disagreed, finding that “the documents signed by the Sheriff are not an enforceable contract and therefore were not subject to the approval” of the commissioners.

He also cited earlier agreements with federal agencies that the sheriff entered into without objection, such as those with the U.S. Marshals and ICE Homeland Security Investigations, which “did not include or require any County Commissioner approval.”

The decision also notes that Harran signed the memorandum of understanding with “limited intent,” designating only three officers to take on the outlined duties and keeping those duties limited.