Thread: Farmers Branch News

2 sides in FB case are dealt minor setbacks

Hearing is today on preliminary injunction against city's rental ban


08:34 AM CDT on Tuesday, June 5, 2007
By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News
ssandoval@dallasnews.com

Just before a hearing on a preliminary injunction barring Farmers Branch from implementing an ordinance that would ban apartment owners from renting to most illegal immigrants, both sides suffered minor setbacks in the federal lawsuit over the ordinance.

U.S. District Court Judge Sam Lindsey on Friday dismissed from the lawsuit a group of businesses that said they had suffered economic losses as a result of the long-running debate and vote on the anti-illegal immigrant measure.

Judge Lindsay also denied a request from the Federation of American Immigration Reform (FAIR) to intervene as a defendant and assist the city in its defense.

Today, attorneys representing the city and apartment complexes and tenants who have sued the city will go before Judge Lindsay in a hearing on a request for a preliminary injunction.

The judge issued a temporary restraining order May 21 preventing the city from implementing the ordinance that more than two-thirds of the city's voters said they wanted in a May 12 election.

As a result of the ruling, the city canceled a meeting scheduled that week with apartment complex owners and managers to further explain the ordinance.

Chief building official Jim Olk said the city is awaiting Judge Lindsay's decision on the preliminary injunction today before planning any other meetings with the apartments.

The restraining order is effective only until the hearing on a preliminary injunction is held. If the judge issues the injunction, the city would be stopped from implementing the ordinance until the lawsuit goes to trial or is otherwise settled.

"While we're disappointed the merchants didn't prevail, we still think the law in its totality is unconstitutional and the judge will strike it down tomorrow," Dallas activist Carlos Quintanilla said Monday. He helped organize the nearly 60 businesses for the lawsuit.

Those businesses said they suffered lost revenues because the ordinance and the protracted, contentious debate surrounding it created a hostile environment towards immigrants, frightening them from patronizing those businesses.

In the ruling issued Friday, the judge said ordinance has no direct effect on those businesses, mostly merchants and service providers, as it affects only apartment complexes.

The city had argued that any business losses might be due to a called boycott of Farmers Branch businesses by Hispanic leaders, the quality of goods and service those businesses provided, their management or other causes.

The judge agreed that the businesses had shown no direct relation between their loss of revenue and Ordinance 2903.

"Obviously the judge didn't feel the businesses had standing to sue and did not believe they were adversely affected," said Mr. Quintanilla.


FAIR's motion

FAIR had filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit as a defendant, saying they sought to protect the interest of FAIR members who live in the city and oppose illegal immigration. They also said the city lacked the money to adequately represent itself.

The city has budgeted $424,000 for legal costs associated with the illegal immigrant ordinance through the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.

Donations to the city's legal defense fund from supporters totaled $35,317 through Monday.

City Council member David Koch, who was elected the same day voters approved the ordinance, said he would push the city to try to recover legal fees from the businesses who sued the city.

The judge said FAIR brought no new legal issues to the table and would unnecessarily delay the proceedings.

City attorney Matthew Boyle declined to comment on the judge's ruling except to say the city appreciated the efforts of FAIR to support and affirm the city's position.

He would not comment on the allegation that the city does not have the finances to represent itself, except to refer to the judge's opinion that the city's interests have been "adequately represented thus far by its highly competent counsel."

The judge will most likely issue a ruling today regarding the preliminary injunction, said William A. Brewer of the Bickel & Brewer Storefront. The Storefront represents some of the remaining plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

In the temporary restraining order, the judge said the plaintiffs were likely to prevail when the case goes to trial because the ordinance conflicts with federal law.

He also said that because the city was trying to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the ordinance violated the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the federal government exclusive right to enact immigration law.

The ordinance would require apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions for families with mixed immigration status. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation.

The judge is not likely to change his mind on those issues and deny a preliminary injunction, said Sanford Levinson, professor at the University of Texas School of Law.

"I should be shocked if he said, 'I thought about it longer, and think I was hasty in giving the temporary restraining order.' I think that would be unusual," Mr. Levinson said.

He also said the courts all the way up to the Supreme Court probably would rule against the city ordinance.

"I think the notion of federal pre-emption on immigration is pretty rock solid, and I think it would be a major, major change of policy," he said.

The judge is wrong! Determining legal residency has nothing to do with discrimination based on race or nation of origin, which is the legal terminology used in the Fair Housing Act.

I've heard Federal Housing Authority employees say this on camera.

Lastly, those businesses would technically still be serving the new tennants of the apartment complex... Right? Unless for some reason they refuse to serve non-illegal aliens.

Dixie

Remember, this judge is a Clintonite. The Clintons, and their followers, are above the law and can interpret it anyway they want.

Stupid judge. The people have voted do not stand in there way.

we can appeal past this judge and on to one who actually follows the law.

but he did toss out the lawsuit so good for him.

also i think someone told me that if FB used the actual HUD definitions used by the Fed that everything would be ok with the ordinance.

oh well i guess we'll see!