Thread: Judge denies restraining order for Vista hiring law

http://www.nctimes.com

Friday, August 4, 2006
Last modified Friday, August 4, 2006 9:26 AM PDT


Judge denies restraining order for Vista hiring law

By: CRAIG TENBROECK and SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writers

VISTA ---- A U.S. District Court judge has denied a request for a temporary retraining order that would have immediately prevented Vista from enforcing a law that regulates the hiring of day laborers.
Download the order denying the Temporary Restraining Order Application

Judge M. James Lorenz wrote in a 10-page decision that the plaintiff in the lawsuit who requested the temporary restraining order had not shown that she is likely to win her argument that the city's ordinance violates the First Amendment.

Lorenz also wrote that he could not conclude that "irreparable harm" would occur if he denied the restraining order.

Lorenz signed his ruling July 31. It was posted on the federal court's Web site Thursday evening.

Two organizations had asked the court to stop implementation of the controversial ordinance as part of a federal lawsuit they filed July 17 on behalf of two Latino day laborers and a Vista woman, Virginia Calderon, who has hired day laborers. Lorenz wrote that the restraining order was requested on behalf of Calderon.

The law, which took effect July 28, requires anyone who hires day laborers off the street to register with the city, display a certificate in their car windows and present workers with written terms of employment.

The lawsuit, filed by California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, alleges that Vista's ordinance violates constitutional free-speech rights and was motivated by unlawful discrimination.

City Attorney Darold Pieper has said repeatedly that the ordinance was designed to protect the predominantly Latino workers from abusive employers.

In his ruling, Lorenz did not address arguments challenging the city's reason for passing the ordinance. He wrote that attacks on the city's motive were raised in a brief filed with the court to which the city did not have a chance to respond.

Lorenz ruled that the ordinance falls under the category of "commercial free speech" protected by the First Amendment, but that a city policy about the implementation of the ordinance rectified one area of concern raised in the request for the restraining order. Considered with the policy, the ordinance does not give the city "unfettered discretion" to decide when an application to register as an employer is complete, Lorenz ruled.

And while the ordinance does not provide for "effective judicial review as required by the First Amendment," the sentence of the law that causes that legal problem can be severed from the rest of the ordinance ---- a more likely remedy than declaring the entire law unconstitutional, Lorenz wrote.

The judge's order applies only to the request for a temporary restraining order. The city has until Friday to file its response to the lawsuit.

Last weekend, activists on both sides of the illegal immigration debate rallied at the city's most popular day-labor hiring spot ---- a parking lot near Escondido and Santa Fe avenues ---- to voice conflicting opinions about the ordinance. Both groups have said registration hurdles will likely discourage day-labor hiring.

Patrick Johnson, assistant to the city manager, said 10 employers had registered with the city by Thursday afternoon. During the first three days of enforcement, code enforcement officers gave fliers and verbal warnings to three unregistered employers, and this week, they handed out five "notices of violation."

Next week, they will start issuing citations, Johnson said.

Johnson added that one registered employer made a hire Wednesday.

Contact staff writer Craig TenBroeck at (760) 631-6621 or ctenbroeck@nctimes.com.

The lawsuit, filed by California Rural Legal Assistance Inc. and the American Civil Liberties Union of San Diego and Imperial Counties, alleges that Vista's ordinance violates constitutional free-speech rights and was motivated by unlawful discrimination.

Gee, the Anti-American Communist La Raza Union (oops, my bad. I meant the 'American Civil Liberties Union) has filed more law suits claiming the 'civil rights' of immigrants are broken once again?

No surprise there!