Thread: Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed.

Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed.

Standard Speaker
By SAM GALSKI (Staff Writer)
Published: August 12, 2012


Lou Barletta, then mayor of Hazleton, speaks to a crowd of about 1,000 people at a pro-Illegal Immigration Relief Act rally held June 3, 2007, outside City Hall.



Lawyers on both sides of an immigration battle that propelled Hazleton into the national spotlight nearly six years ago will base testimony on court rulings from related disputes in Arizona and Farmers Branch, Texas, when the case resumes Wednesday in federal appeals court.

Attorneys for the American Civil Liberties Union and the city of Hazleton have filed briefs and will make oral arguments before the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia on Wednesday.

The appeals court, ordered by the U.S. Supreme Court to take another look at Hazleton's case, will write the next chapter in a long-standing dispute over the city's rental registration ordinance and related Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

The laws, which were never enforced, essentially bar businesses from hiring, and landlords from harboring, illegal immigrants.

The case that has become known as "Lozano, et al. v. City of Hazleton" includes plaintiffs Pedro Lozano, Casa Dominicana of Hazleton Inc., Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition.

Parties on both sides of the dispute say they're confident heading into Wednesday's appearance before the appeals court.

Omar C. Jadwat, an attorney with ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project, filed a 32-page brief on behalf of plaintiffs addressing the effects a Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's immigration law has on Hazleton's ordinances.

"In certain ways, they're both kind of directed at the same end - to make life miserable for people so that they leave," Jadwat contends. "The Hazleton law, in certain ways, is more direct about prohibiting basically residence of certain people in the City of Hazleton."

Kris Kobach, a lawyer who wrote Hazleton's ordinances and serves as Kansas secretary of state, believes Supreme Court rulings on similar immigration law in Arizona and Farmers Branch bolster Hazleton's chances of getting a ruling in its favor.

Similar laws

The Supreme Court in late June struck down parts of the Arizona law but upheld a portion that gave law enforcement the ability to check the immigration status of people they arrest. Federal officials who challenged the Arizona law did not contest changes made to a previous law that forces Arizona's employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm eligibility of employees and imposes penalties on employers who knowingly employ illegal aliens.

The latter provisions are similar to Hazleton's ordinances.

Kobach filed a brief on Aug. 1 that calls the Third Circuit Court's attention to a ruling from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court that vacates a previous panel decision regarding an immigration ordinance proposed in Farmers Branch, Texas.

A three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit was split 2-1 on the Farmers Branch ordinance, which would require that tenants register with a building inspector who would verify their lawful immigration status.

On July 31, however, the Fifth Circuit granted a petition for a rehearing en banc in the Farmers Branch case, which Kobach said in a legal brief has "the immediate effect of vacating the panel decision in that case."

Kobach said plaintiffs in Hazleton's case argued in March that the Third Circuit court follow the now-vacated Farmers Branch opinion.

"Such reliance would be misplaced, due to the fact that the panel opinion no longer has any precedential effect," Kobach wrote. "There is now no opinion in any circuit concerning an ordinance similar to Hazleton's that can be said to offer an even indirect support for Plaintiff-Appellees's position."

Kobach cited those developments - along with the Supreme Court ordering the Third Circuit Court to revisit Hazleton's case - when saying he believes Hazleton is on solid footing.

"I think the court is recognizing that the first try wasn't correct in the eyes of the Supreme Court," he said. "With the two recent decisions from the Supreme Court … if the Third Circuit follows the Supreme Court's lead, it should sustain the ordinance. But, we'll see."

Kobach believes the plaintiffs have no argument for the employment provisions of Hazleton's ordinances, particularly because the Supreme Court upheld a similar law in Arizona.

"Most of the discussion in court next week will probably focus on the rental provisions of the Hazleton ordinance," he said.

Jadwat's brief addresses rental and housing provisions of Hazleton's ordinances, saying they dictate who must register and when, along with the type of information they must provide when registering, and also impose penalties for failing to comply with registration rules, making false statements or submitting false documents.

"The fact that the City nominally requires citizens as well as noncitizens to register does not change its intrinsic character as an immigration control measure," Jadwat wrote. "The registration scheme serves to obtain alien information, only noncitizens are required to provide information purporting to indicate their lawful presence in the United States, and only noncitizens will have their information sent to the federal government. The housing provisions therefore tread on the field occupied by federal alien registration law."

The appeals court also has directed the city to file a brief regarding the effects of Arizona's law on Hazleton's ordinances.

Attendance

U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, R-11, who championed the illegal immigration ordinances while serving as Hazleton's mayor, said he has been following the case and will attend the Third Circuit hearing Wednesday.

While Jadwat believes the Arizona ruling will make for a stronger case for plaintiffs in Hazleton's case, Barletta said he's "very optimistic" the city's ordinances will stand, particularly because the business portion of Arizona's law was based on the city's ordinances.

"I think the chances are better now than ever in light of the fact that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the state of Arizona, who used the business portion of our ordinance," Barletta said. "I feel that the Supreme Court would not be sending this down (to the appeals court) to be heard again if they didn't feel we had a case."

Hazleton Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi believes the Third Circuit panel's willingness to hear oral arguments will only benefit the city. Yannuzzi said he will also be in attendance Wednesday.

Jadwat, who will argue on the plaintiffs' behalf, doesn't believe oral arguments will benefit one party more than the other.

"It's not surprising," he said. "I think it's just part of the court trying to consider the issues fully."

Kobach, however, disagrees.

"We already argued in 2008 in the Third Circuit," he said. "It ruled against the city and the Supreme Court of the United States told the Third Circuit to, 'Try again, you got it wrong.' The court could've just revisited the case without another round of hearings."

Kobach will argue on Hazleton's behalf while Jadwat will argue for plaintiffs.

Jadwat submitted the plaintiffs' legal brief along with representatives from the ACLU of Pennsylvania, Cozen O'Connor of Philadelphia, White & Williams of Philadelphia and LatinoJustice of New York.

The outcome

Jadwat said the plaintiffs on Wednesday will seek the same outcome as in the past - having the courts suspend Hazleton's laws.

"We've won at every stage at this case - from the first filing at district court and now, we're back down in front of the (Third Circuit) court of appeals," Jadwat said. "We want to defend that injunction."

Legal fees, which exceeded $2 million as of May 2009, will also come into play at some point, Jadwat said.

As with any other municipality that engages in "unconstitutional conduct," Hazleton could face a steep bill, Jadwat said.

"That is one of the consequences for Hazleton in pursuing this path - that they are likely to find themselves on the hook for significant attorney's fees," he said. "It is, of course, and has always been possible for Hazleton to minimize and avoid these fees by abiding by the rulings of the district court."

Kobach, however, said that while the ACLU "loves to suppress cities with legal fees," their lawyers often don't disclose two key issues.

"They only get the legal fees if they win, and only if they get involved in civil rights issues," Kobach said. "Not all aspects (of Hazleton's case) are civil rights. We're a long way from seeing any fees in that manner."

sgalski@standardspeaker.com

Hazleton's immigration law back in court Wed. - News - Standard Speaker

"In certain ways, they're both kind of directed at the same end - to make life miserable for people so that they leave," Jadwat contends. "The Hazleton law, in certain ways, is more direct about prohibiting basically residence of certain people in the City of Hazleton."

Those certain people are illegals who never should have been here to begin with.