Immigration Reform Caucus

U.S. Courts Strike Down Immigration Ordinances

Cox News Service

September 19, 2007

washington d.c. — Cities and groups trying to crack down on illegal immigration are finding an obstacle to their efforts -- U.S. courts.

A string of recent judicial decisions have invalidated many tough ordinances, including those trying to crackdown on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and employers who hire them.

A federal ruling that struck down an immigration ordinance in Hazleton, Pa., has created a ripple effect, stopping other cities from approving or enacting similar measures until the case makes its way up the judicial chain.

Similar laws in Escondido, Calif., Farmer Branch, Texas, and a few other cities have also been invalidated or put on hold by federal courts.

In Herndon, Va., an anti-solicitation ordinance that targeted illegal immigrant day laborers was struck down by a circuit court judge who ruled that it violated the First Amendment.

Earlier this month, a federal court in San Francisco put on hold a Department of Homeland Security effort to crack down on employers who hire illegal immigrants, angering groups who seek tougher enforcement. The government was planning to deliver thousands of letters to companies warning of workers with potentially false Social Security numbers. Businesses that ignore the letters could be fined up to $10,000 per employee or face criminal prosecution.

Immigrant advocates and civil rights groups praised the court decisions, saying that the judges are doing their job in protecting legal rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

The local city ordinances "are unconstitutional and the courts recognize that," said Omar Jadwat, staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) Immigrants' Rights Project. The court decisions "have been a very strong reminder to everyone that people have rights regardless of their immigration status in this country and they have to be treated consistently with the Constitution."

The ACLU is spearheading many of the lawsuits, including the one against Hazleton which is considered an important test case by all sides.

A federal judge ruled in July that the Hazleton ordinance would violate due process rights guaranteed in the 14th Amendment and conflicted with federal law.

The court also ruled that the Constitution provides due process protections to all persons, including illegal immigrants.

Cobb County, Ga. announced earlier this year that is was scrapping plans to try to limit the hiring of immigrant day laborers because such an ordinance might not stand up in court.

County officials cited the federal ruling on Hazleton as part of the decision.

In a statement, county officials also said they were advised "that day labor and soliciting work as a day laborer are themselves legal activities that have taken place in Georgia for many years and enjoy certain constitutional protections."

Cobb County later approved a housing ordinance that limits the number of adults and non-family members that can live in a home. Critics say that it unfairly targets Hispanic residents.

An immigration ordinance in Cherokee County, Ga., which would punish property owners who rent to illegal immigrants, was also put on hold earlier this year, until similar court cases in other states are resolved.

The immigration ordinance in Farmers Branch, a suburb of Dallas, was placed on hold by a federal judge in June pending the outcome of the court case.

It would require renters to prove that they are in the United States legally. Landlords who rent to illegal immigrants could face up to $500 in fines per day for each person.

In ruling against the ordinance, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay of the Northern District of Texas, said that "only the federal government may determine whether an individual is legally in the United States."

The lawsuit was filed by the ACLU, the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund and apartment owners in Farmers Branch.

Lawmakers and groups who favor stronger immigration security measures say that the court decisions are further evidence of "activist judges" who are legislating from the bench and thwarting the will of the American people.

Rep. Brian Bilbray, a California Republican who chairs the House Immigration Reform Caucus, said that the court decision on the false Social Security letters "boggles the mind."

"The role of the judge is to interpret the law, not to try to re-legislate something," he said.

In that case, the court was responding to a lawsuit by the ACLU, AFL-CIO, and other groups who say that the Homeland Security effort would lead to discrimination and threaten legal workers because of errors in government databases.

Bilbray said such court rulings contribute to distrust of the system from the American people who are tired of courts, Congress and the Bush administration acting to encourage illegal immigration.

"The average American is very upset about this issue -- Democrat, Republican or independent," he said. "People are feeling like they're under siege."

Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, said that the court rulings against local immigration ordinances will likely continue because the measures conflict with federal law and raise Constitutional questions.

In addition, he said judges are leery of allowing hundreds of little immigration laws around the country.

As far as the test case of Hazleton, he added, "one would have to bet against Hazleton prevailing in the litigation. The town is bucking decades of precedent."

In addition to a patchwork of local ordinances across the country, more than 1,400 pieces of legislation related to immigrants and immigration have been introduced in state houses, according to the National Conference of State Legislators.