SPOKANE, Wash. (Legal Newsline) – Why should a dispute over the access given to federal officials be heard in a state court, Greyhound is asking as it fights a lawsuit by Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson.
Greyhound filed a response to Ferguson’s motion to remand on July 23 as the two sides fight over where Ferguson’s lawsuit will be heard. It was originally filed in state court then moved to federal by Greyhound.
The lawsuit says Greyhound has let passengers down by allowing U.S. Customs and Border Patrol agents to board and search its buses. It’s a federal issue, Greyhound says.
“(T)here is a connection or association – indeed, there is a causal nexus – between Greyhound’s actions, taken pursuant to the directions of federal officers, i.e., CBP agents, and Plaintiff’s claims,” attorneys for Greyhound wrote.
“In allowing CBP agents to board and search its buses at the Spokane Intermodal
Center, Greyhound acted under the agents because it was involved in an effort to assist or help them carry out their duties or tasks.”
Greyhound has consented to CBP agents conducting warrantless and suspicion-less immigration enforcement sweeps, Ferguson says. The company has argued it is required to comply with CBP’s requests.
“Greyhound fails to warn and misleads its customers about this practice, the frequency and discriminatory nature of the sweeps, and the likely impacts on passengers, particularly passengers of colors,” Ferguson’s attorneys wrote June 26.
Two weeks earlier, Greyhound filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit that claims the company violated the state’s Consumer Protection Act and Washington Law Against Discrimination.
Ferguson is worried U.S. Customs & Border Protection agents are checking up on minorities – especially Latinos – when they use Greyhound’s buses and facilities in Spokane.
“Here, deeming Greyhound’s accession to CBP demands to be unlawful would prevent it from complying with orders that (federal law) permits, and would obstruct the use of federal authority Congress provided,” the motion says.
“To the extent the duty Plaintiff seeks to impose on Greyhound thwarts federal objectives, it is preempted.”
Greyhound says Ferguson’s claims should be thrown out, adding that he neglected to join CBP as a necessary party. If the complaint is not dismissed at this stage, CBP should be added as a defendant, the company says.
“Resolution of this controversy without CBP’s joinder would subject Greyhound to inconsistent obligations,” the motion says.
“For example, even if Greyhound were compelled by Plaintiff’s requested injunction to bar CBP agents from (1) boarding and searching its buses at the Spokane Intermodal Center without a warrant or consent or reasonable suspicion, and (2) accessing its non-public property there in order to board and search its buses, Greyhound would still be subject to demands by CBP agents to allow them to do so pursuant to Section 1357 because CBP would not be bound by the injunction.”