Murrill: State won’t use law against obstructing immigration raids to target speech

By Katie Jane Fernelius
Contributing Writer

(Veritenews.org) — The Louisiana Attorney General’s office and the Louisiana State Police both say that a new state law that criminalizes any act intended to “hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts” will not be used to prosecute speech, such as guidance on how to respond to immigration enforcement agents during raids and arrests.

The assertion came in response to a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana on behalf of the Immigration Services and Legal Advocacy (ISLA), which argued that the law, passed earlier this year, is overly vague and could be used to criminalize protected speech, such as “know-your-rights” trainings and presentations, in violation of the First Amendment. Civil rights groups and, as of this week, even the New Orleans City Council, have offered such guidance in response to operation “Catahoula Crunch,” the stepped-up immigration enforcement action that began on Wednesday (Dec. 3).

As written, Act 399 of 2025 does not specify which acts could be interpreted as interfering with immigration enforcement. It purports to criminalize “any act” that could “hinder, delay, prevent, or otherwise interfere with or thwart federal immigration enforcement efforts” with penalties of as much as $5,000 in fines and a year behind bars.

“This case is about the State of Louisiana’s unlawful attempts to use the threat of vague and overbroad felony charges to silence the residents of New Orleans, Louisiana, from speaking out about the rights of immigrants during the federal operation dubbed ‘Catahoula Crunch’ or ‘Operation Swamp Sweep,’” the ACLU’s complaint said.

When news broke last month that hundreds of Border Patrol agents would be deployed to the New Orleans area, ISLA – which provides pro bono legal services to people in immigration detention – began receiving a large number of requests for know-your-rights training sessions. Such sessions typically offer legal guidance on how to assert your constitutional rights, including the right to remain silent or to demand a search warrant, in the event that a federal immigration officer stops you or comes knocking at your door.

But the group recently stopped providing such trainings, according to the suit, out of fear that they could face arrest – or that their advice could make others vulnerable to criminal prosecution – under the new obstruction law.

The group cited a series of statements from Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill in recent weeks warning that the law could be used against people who oppose or challenge immigration enforcement agents.

However, in a Thursday court filing Murrill’s office said that the law does not cover “pure speech” such as know-your-rights presentations. According to the filing, the law was intended to prevent “violent scenes where defendants have physically inhibited a law-enforcement officer from carrying out his duties.”

“There’s an understanding and agreement as to how this statute will be applied and that it will not be applied to violate your client’s constitutional rights,” U.S. District Judge Nanette Jolivette Brown said on Thursday, at the end of a court hearing.

The subject of the hearing was a request from ISLA and the ACLU for the judge to issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants – Murill’s office, the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s Office, the New Orleans Police Department and the Louisiana State Police – from using the law to prosecute know-your-rights trainings.

Jolivette Brown did not rule on the motion on Thursday, but the plaintiffs said Murrill’s assurances constituted a victory.

“This is a win today,” said Nora Ahmed, the legal director of the ACLU of Louisiana. “That filing that is now in the record is a win. No matter what happens to this case, that filing sits there, that filing now becomes the manner in which this law is going to be used, and it provides necessary clarity to so many people.”

According to Ahmed, a number of community organizations submitted a letter to Murrill’s office last week asking for clarity on how the state law would be used. According to Ahmed, that clarity wasn’t offered until the state’s filing on Thursday.

“What we ended seeing this morning was something you don’t see often … which was that the Attorney General as a defendant in this case, and also defendant Hodges, who is the head of the Louisiana State Police, ultimately agreed that the law would not be used to prosecute ISLA in any way as it relates to their trainings and presentations,” Ahmed said.

“Importantly, they went even further than that and they actually provided some very important and critical parameters around the law,” Ahmed added. “And those parameters included that the law was ultimately, apparently conceived for addressing violent conduct. And that particular understanding on the part of the people of New Orleans and the state of Louisiana is critical because now they can engage freely in protest activities.”

Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the Louisiana Attorney General’s Office referred Verite News to a social media post from Murrill. In the post, Murrill said that the ACLU of Louisiana had “filed a lawsuit over nothing—there is no First Amendment problem with Act 399” and that her office was grateful that the court had declined to issue a temporary restraining order, as initially requested.

This article originally published in the December 8, 2025 print edition of The Louisiana Weekly newspaper.