Thread: Tuesday hearing set on move to block employer sanctions law

Published: 12.13.2007

Tuesday hearing set on move to block employer sanctions law
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
A federal judge says he'll rule quickly on a request to at least temporarily block implementation of Arizona's new law to suspend or revoke licenses of businesses that knowingly employ illegal immigrants.
U.S. District Neil Wake scheduled a hearing for Tuesday on the challengers' request for a temporary restraining order and also to set a "prompt and fair schedule" for a longer injunction that the challengers also want.
But Wake also said his decision on the request for a temporary order may be influenced by the challengers' tardiness in adding the state's 15 county attorneys to the lawsuit.
Wake last Friday dismissed the original lawsuit because it didn't name the county attorneys as defendants as well as state officials. The challengers refiled the lawsuit Sunday to add the county attorneys.
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/216107

Judge critical of delay in revamping challenge to sanctions law
Associated Press
Dec. 13, 2007 05:24 PM

PHOENIX - Business interests trying to at least temporarily block implementation of Arizona's new employer sanctions law have an uphill climb if a federal judge's critical comments are any guide.

U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake said the challengers hurt their chances to get a temporary restraining order blocking the Jan. 1 implementation of the law by not naming county attorneys as defendants in the original suit filed against state officials.

Wake commented in an order Thursday in which he scheduled a hearing Tuesday to consider the challengers' request for a temporary restraining order and to schedule consideration of their request for a longer-lasting preliminary injunction.

The law, enacted last June as a response to the influx of illegal immigrants into Arizona, requires the suspension or revocation of business licenses of employers who knowingly or intentionally employ illegal immigrants.

The challengers contend the law is an unconstitutional state infringement on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration and argue that the state's businesses should not be burdened with having to comply with its mandates.

Wake on Friday dismissed the challengers' original lawsuit, ruling that they should have named the state's 14 county attorneys as defendants because the law gives those officials will enforce the law.

The challengers then refiled their lawsuit to add the county attorneys as defendants.

Wake's order cited appellate court rulings that said delays in seeking emergency court orders as a consequence of a party's “tactical decisionsâ€

I defy anybody to show where the Constitution gives the feds exclusive authority over immigration, since it used to be the STATES that issued passports and had control over immigration.

It's the states and cities that issue business licenses also - so it would seem they could make rules governing that.

The challengers contend the law is an unconstitutional state infringement on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration and argue that the state's businesses should not be burdened with having to comply with its mandates.

That is like arguing the challengers aren't responsible for with-holding social security, state, and federal taxes on a workers paycheck. Social Security and Federal taxes are federal matters.

The challengers business records should be auditted by OSHA for safety complience and the IRS to determine if they are in complience and paying proper social security, state and federal taxes, providing workmans comp., etc.

All Rights Reserved, All Wrongs Reversed

Selden said the challengers will stress the costs incurred by businesses to follow the law's mandate that they enroll to use a federal employment eligibility system.

Oh...Pleeeezzze! The e-verify system is free to use, isn't it? And businesses are already mandated to verify employee's eligibility. This is such a ridiculous lawsuit and a "hail mary" attempt to luck out and get a judge to "legislate" from the bench. SHeeeh!!

Published: 12.14.2007

Employer-sanctions law may take effect despite challenges
Businesses want law blocked until legality is settled
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
PHOENIX — A federal judge said Thursday that he may let the state's new employer-sanctions law take effect while he debates its legality.
U.S. District Judge Neil Wake agreed to schedule a hearing Tuesday on a request by challengers to block enforcement of the law, set to take effect Jan. 1. They need the restraining order because it is virtually impossible for Wake to have a full-blown hearing on the legal merits of the statute and issue a ruling before the start of the new year.
The judge said the time squeeze is no one's fault but the business groups who want the law overturned.
Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks at issuing the restraining order, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents.
He noted a part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $150 million — $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected — money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a court to conclude the statute is unconstitutional.
"It's not in anybody's interest to have the law go into effect before there's a ruling," he said.
But Wake pointed out that opponents of the law and their lawyers were warned by the Attorney General's Office in September that they may have sued the wrong parties. At that time, state Solicitor General Mary O'Grady said the proper defendants are the state's 15 county attorneys, the people charged with enforcing the law.
But the business lawyers chose to ignore that warning in challenging the law, which allows a judge to suspend or revoke any state licenses of any firm found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
Wake said that flaw in the legal papers was one reason he threw out their original lawsuit earlier this month.
The business groups filed new legal papers this week suing the county attorneys, while at the same time asking Wake to keep the law from taking effect while he weighs the issue.
"The urgency that plaintiffs feel is of their own making," the judge responded Thursday. He said the business groups "have now dissipated the time available for the appropriate defendants to present their case and for the court to deliberate and rule after hearing both sides."
Selden said he didn't sue the 15 county attorneys because he didn't think it was necessary. But he also said there was a "strategic decision" to keep the case simple and more efficient.
But Wake said if a "tactical decision" by lawyers of how to pursue litigation results in a delay, that decision "evidences a lack of diligence and is grounds for denial" of a restraining order.
Selden said the county attorneys may want to support his request for the restraining order.
He said counties, unlike the state, are not immune to lawsuits in federal court seeking financial damages. And Selden said businesses could seek to recover that $150 million in costs if the law eventually is voided.
The battle over whether to stay enforcement of the law comes as another group of plaintiffs involved in the original cause also filed their own new lawsuit asking Wake to void the law, and their own request for a temporary restraining order.
Attorneys representing Valle del Sol, Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America presented their own arguments about why they believe the law is illegal. But their contentions center not on the harm to companies who are being forced to comply with the law but on arguments that employers, who fear being punished under the new law, will be less likely to hire minorities and foreign-born workers, who are legally entitled to work in this country.http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/216189

Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks at issuing the restraining order, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents.
He noted a part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $150 million — $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected — money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a court to conclude the statute is unconstitutional.

I hope the Judge will have a field day with this! How in this day and age, is a business NOT computerized? I bet all these illegals & their lovers have internet access and computers at home.

Originally Posted by miguelina

Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks at issuing the restraining order, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents.
He noted a part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $150 million — $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected — money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a court to conclude the statute is unconstitutional.

I hope the Judge will have a field day with this! How in this day and age, is a business NOT computerized? I bet all these illegals & their lovers have internet access and computers at home.

A single PC and internet connection should be under $1,000 / year.

Attorney David Selden said if Wake balks at issuing the restraining order, it will have major financial implications for the businesses he represents.
He noted a part of the law requires all firms to sign up with the E-Verify program. That means having the necessary computer equipment and training employees to use it. Selden said that could run $150 million — $1,000 for each of the 150,000 Arizona businesses affected — money he said would be wasted if he eventually gets a court to conclude the statute is unconstitutional.

I bet 99% of the employers have computers. Employers paying by paychecks would have computers. Those paying in cash--maybe. Mr. Selden quit putting up smoke screens and deal with the real issue--hiring illegal immigrants under the table.

What is Attorney David Selden charging each of the 150,000 businesses he represents--if he only charges $1000 per company (but I bet it is more) Mr. Selden collects $150,000,000 regardless if he wins or loses.

If businesses don't have the $1000 to buy a computer to comply with the law, how can they afford to pay an attorney........how stupid is that!

A learned blockhead is a greater blockhead than an ignorant one.
Benjamin Franklin