Cacho v. Gusman

Case Overview

This civil rights lawsuit brought by Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo against the Orleans Parish Sheriff Office (OPSO) challenges their confinement in the parish jail for months beyond their completed separate, short sentences for minor offenses.

In 2009 and 2010, Plaintiffs Mario Cacho and Antonio Ocampo, respectively, completed their short sentences for minor offenses. Upon the expiration of their criminal sentences, the Orleans Parish Sheriff continued to hold them in his custody based on a hold request from ICE, commonly known as a detainer. Together, Plaintiffs were held in OPSO custody for more than 250 days pursuant to the detainer, despite local law enforcement only being allowed to detain the person of interest for no more than 48 hours. Plaintiffs were released after separately filing a civil rights complaint with the Department of Homeland Security’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties (DHS-CRCL) and petition for a writ of habeas corpus.

After their releases, Plaintiffs filed a complaint against OPSO, bringing Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment depravation of liberty and due process violation, false imprisonment and negligence claims. The case eventually settled in 2013, putting in place an immigration policy that prohibits OPSO from having to detain most individuals subject to requests from ICE and further restricts OPSO from sharing certain information about detainees with the federal agency. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Messrs. Cacho and Ocampo are represented by the National Immigration Law Center, Tulane Law School, Al Otro Lado, National Immigration Project, and pro bono counsel, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP.

To date, the policy is still in effect; however, in 2024, a Louisiana law—Act 314—that prohibits local law enforcement from adopting sanctuary policies that prohibit cooperation with ICE investigations threatens its existence.

In February 2025, the State of Louisiana moved to intervene in the case to dissolve or terminate the policy. While the State’s motion to intervene was granted, the motion to terminate remains pending.