Thread: Employer sanctions law upheld by federal appeals court

Employer sanctions law upheld by federal appeals court
118 commentsby Mary Jo Pitzl - Sept. 17, 2008 12:33 PM
The Arizona Republic
Arizona's employer-sanctions law was upheld Wednesday by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The three-judge panel ruled that a lower court's determination last year that the policy was not blocked by federal law was correct.

The law has been in force since January, although no prosecutions have yet been made of Arizona employers.
The court noted this in discussing the appeal, saying “we must observe that it is brought against a blank factual background of enforcement and outside the context of any particular case.â€

Sep 17, 3:44 PM EDT

Appeals court upholds Arizona immigration law

By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press Writer

PHOENIX (AP) -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and Hispanic groups who contend that the law infringes on federal immigration powers.

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.

Jonathan Weissglass, a lawyer for those challenging the law, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment late Wednesday morning.

Lawyers for the state argued that while a similar federal hiring law prevents states from imposing civil or criminal penalties against businesses for illegal hirings, the federal law lets states take licensing actions against violators. The appellate court agreed with that argument.

A lower-court judge upheld the law in December, before it took effect.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/ ... SECTION=US

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenseswhen they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

Without E-Verify, who cannot claim they looked at the documents and just didn't know they were fakes as employers are not document experts. I just wonder what good attorneys would be able to do against "knowingly hiring." After all the proof of the accusation rests on the prosecution.

9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds employer sanctions law

By Jim Small

Wednesday, September 17, 2008

A federal appeals court has upheld Arizona's employer sanctions law, which penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.

Business and Hispanic groups challenged the law on the grounds that it oversteps the state's authority to regulate immigration, an argument that was rejected by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in a ruling released today.

The law imposes a civil penalty on businesses that knowingly hire illegal workers. Violating the law could cause a business's licenses to be suspended or revoked.

Although it upheld the law, the three-judge panel that heard the case left the door open for other challenges to the law, noting that no businesses have been prosecuted in the nearly nine months the law has been on the books and specifically pointing out that future challenges will not be controlled by the decision.

Lawyers for the state argued that while federal hiring law prevents states from imposing civil or criminal penalties against businesses for illegal hirings, the federal statute lets states take licensing actions against violators. The appellate court agreed with that argument.

Rep. Russell Pearce, who spearheaded the effort to enact a state law to punish businesses for hiring illegal immigrants, called the ruling a victory.

"You know what? Even the 9th Circuit gets things right every once in a while. What a great ruling," he said.

David Jones, president of the Arizona Contractors Association, one of the plaintiffs in the suit, said he wasn't surprised by the ruling, given the hostility the three-judge panel showed toward the arguments against the law when attorneys presented their cases before the San Francisco court in June.

"I didn't hear any comments from any of the judges on the panel that they favored any of our arguments on our case," he said.

Jones said he hadn't spoken with the co-plaintiffs or legal counsel yet, but he suspected the next move would be to seek en banc review, in which the entire 9th Circuit would examine the case and issue a ruling.

The court's rules allow for the entire court to hear a case only if the decision of the initial appeals panel conflicts with a Supreme Court decision or an earlier decision by the 9th Circuit.

Jones pointed to a decision by the 9th Circuit four days after attorneys gave oral arguments in the employer sanctions challenge that said an employer is not justified in firing an employee solely on the basis of receiving a letter from the Social Security Administration that the employee's Social Security number does not match the federal database.

That ruling, Jones said, seems to directly contradict the court's more recent ruling to upholding of the sanctions law, which requires Arizona employers to fire employees who are determined by the federal E-Verify employment eligibility database to be unauthorized to work.

"I'm not a lawyer, but it's confusing to me," he said.

Pearce said the cases have distinct differences, not the least of which is the E-Verify system, which does not rely solely on the Social Security database to determine eligibility. It also accesses data from the Department of Homeland Security.

Additionally, Pearce said, employees who receive a "tentative non-confirmation" from E-Verify are given eight days to challenge that finding and correct any errors in the federal databases. During that time, the employers are prohibited from taking any adverse action against the employee.

"They may try that," he said of an en banc review and argument based on the Aramark case, "but they know they'll lose there, too."
http://www.azcapitoltimes.com/printable.cfm?ID=9494

Notice the difference in the two headlines?

Appeals court upholds Arizona immigration law

By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press Writer



9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds employer sanctions law

By Jim Small

You can post a comment about this article in USA TODAY at their Online site at this link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... laws_N.htm

Originally Posted by Bowman

Notice the difference in the two headlines?

Appeals court upholds Arizona immigration law

By JACQUES BILLEAUD
Associated Press Writer



9th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds employer sanctions law

By Jim Small

Good observation. This law doesn't affect immigrants, just employers who hire illegal immigrants. Big diff!

Appeals court upholds Ariz. immigration law

PHOENIX (AP) — A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld an Arizona law that penalizes businesses that knowingly hire illegal immigrants and requires them to verify the employment status of their workers.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision rejected a challenge by business and Hispanic groups who contend that the law infringes on federal immigration powers.

The law, intended to lessen the economic incentive for immigrants to sneak into the country, imposes civil penalties on employers by suspending or revoking their business licenses when they are found to have knowingly hired illegal immigrants.

While it upheld the law, a three-judge panel of the court left the door open for other challenges, saying no one has been accused of violating the law since it took effect nine months ago.

Jonathan Weissglass, a lawyer for those challenging the law, didn't immediately return a call seeking comment late Wednesday morning.

Lawyers for the state argued that while a similar federal hiring law prevents states from imposing civil or criminal penalties against businesses for illegal hirings, the federal law lets states take licensing actions against violators. The appellate court agreed with that argument.

A lower-court judge upheld the law in February.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... laws_N.htm

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/article-3546--0-0.html

The coalition of businesses and civil rights groups that challenged the law have not announced whether they will take their case to the Supreme Court.
__________________
Randall Flynn

Job Opportunities