A New York federal jury on Friday found Suffolk County and the Suffolk County Sheriff's Office liable for violating the due process rights of a class of hundreds of migrants detained past their release dates on behalf of federal immigration authorities, awarding the immigrants $112 million in damages.

The unanimous verdict, which came after a weeklong trial, held that Suffolk County authorities violated the 14th Amendment due process rights of 674 immigrants by failing to notify them of why they were being held after posting bail or resolving their criminal cases, according to class counsel.

The jury also awarded class members $112 million in damages, attorneys said.

"This decision brings long-overdue accountability," José Pérez, deputy general counsel at LatinoJustice PRLDEF, said in a statement Monday. "The jury confirmed what we have argued all along, that Suffolk County's actions trampled the basic due process rights guaranteed under the 14th Amendment."

"Today's verdict is justice served, and our clients' courage ensures these types of abuses will hopefully not be repeated," he said.

Counsel for Suffolk County did not immediately respond to a request for comment Monday evening.

The trial focused on Suffolk County's practice of holding people in criminal matters in jail for two days past their scheduled release dates at the request of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement after U.S. District Judge William Kuntz II in January issued a summary judgment order finding the county liable for violating the plaintiffs' state and federal constitutional rights.

The county brought an interlocutory appeal of the summary judgment ruling, asserting federal sovereign immunity as to all the migrants' claims. But the Second Circuit dismissed it on procedural grounds, so the defense raised the argument in a July motion to dismiss ahead of the November trial date.

At a hearing in September, an attorney for the defense, Sean Mullen of Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP, argued that Congress has given local law enforcement the same immunity when acting in cooperation with federal agencies such as ICE.

"It is the case that defendants were at least acting under the color of [federal] authority," Mullen told Judge Kuntz.

However, the class contended that the defense waived the sovereign immunity argument because they didn't raise it in three previous motions to dismiss or at the summary judgment stage.

Michelle Tuma of Winston & Strawn LLP, representing the class, told the judge the county is precluded from asserting the immunity defense now just to delay the trial, adding that the "defendants have never attempted to offer an excuse for failure" to raise that defense.

Judge Kuntz denied the motion to dismiss 10 days later, agreeing with the class that the county waived the defense.

"In the United States of America, the rule of law defines the power of the police: not the other way around," the judge said.

The class is represented by Aldo Badini and Michelle Tuma of Winston & Strawn LLP and Jose Perez, Andrew Case and Stephanie Cordero of LatinoJustice PRLDEF.

Suffolk County is represented by Thomas Dewey and Sean Mullen of Dewey Pegno & Kramarsky LLP and Anne Leahey of the Suffolk County Attorney's Office.

The case is Castaneda et al. v. County of Suffolk et al., case number 2:17-cv-04267, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

--Additional reporting by Elliot Weld and Stewart Bishop. Editing by Kristen Becker.