Thread: Judge Throws Out Suit to Stop Arizona's New Employer Laws!!!

Judge throws out sanctions lawsuit

Brahm Resnik
12 News
Dec. 7, 2007 08:52 PM

"A federal judge tonight threw out a lawsuit challenging the state's new employer sanctions law, apparently clearing the way for the law to take effect Jan. 1.

In his 25-page ruling, Judge Neil V. Wake essentially said the plaintiffs -- a broad coalition of business and immigrant rights groups -- were suing the wrong people.

"This action must be dismissed without prejudice...there being no justiciable case or controversy against the defendants," the judge wrote.

He suggested that a suit brought against a county attorney, the office with primary responsibility for enforcement, might be more appropriate.

Arizona's employer sanctions law, viewed as one of the toughest in the country, would revoke the licenses of businesses that knowingly or intentionally hire or employ illegal immigrants.

The judge's opinion was released at 6:45 p.m. Friday, and caught many parties to the suit off guard.

Farrell Quinlan, a spokesman for business groups in the suit, said they planned to file more information with the judge to answer what he sees as shortcomings in the lawsuit.

Alfredo Gutierrez, a spokesman for immigrant rights groups, said they now plan to refile the lawsuit after Jan. 1, when they might be able to show damages caused by the law.

A spokesman for Gov. Janet Napolitano, the lead defendant in the lawsuit, said she would have no comment tonight because her lawyers had not yet read the ruling."

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... ng-CR.html

You would think that this would be good news......But, then there is this article!!


Challenge to employer-sanctions law thrown out

By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services

Tucson, Arizona | Published: 12.08.2007

PHOENIX – A federal judge late Friday threw out a lawsuit challenging the state's new employer-sanctions law — but not because he concluded it is legal.

Instead, U.S. District Judge Neil Wake found that the companies and organizations trying to have the law overturned even before it takes effect do not have standing to sue.

The law allows a judge to suspend for up to 10 days any state license of a company found guilty of knowingly hiring an undocumented worker. A second violation within three years results in revocation.

In their legal papers, the plaintiffs asked him to block Attorney General Terry Goddard from enforcing the law.
But Wake noted that the statute actually gives the power to enforce the law to each of the 15 county attorneys. And since they were not named as defendants in the lawsuit, he has no power to order them to do — or not do — anything.

David Selden, the lead attorney for the challengers, said he is studying the ruling and may simply refile the case, this time naming the county prosecutors.

But that doesn't solve all of the problems.

Wake pointed out that there was no evidence that anyone was in any actual danger of being sued, a critical requirement for seeking a restraining order.

In fact, the reverse is true: The various business groups that brought the lawsuit, including members of the Arizona Contractors Association, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the Arizona Farm Bureau Federation and the Arizona Restaurant and Hospitality Association, all insisted they do not knowingly hire people not in this country legally. That suggests that even if the case is refiled, even with the proper defendants, Wake still might refuse to block enforcement of the law.

The judge did indicate, though, he might be convinced to throw out one provision: It requires employers to check the legal status of all new workers through the federal government's E-Verify program, a database that compares the names and Social Security number of workers with federal records.

Wake said there was evidence presented that there is a cost to businesses to comply with that provision, even if it's just the time spent doing the checks. He said that means this part of the law places an economic burden on companies, giving them standing to challenge it."


http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/related/215377.php

Wake said there was evidence presented that there is a cost to businesses to comply with that provision, even if it's just the time spent doing the checks. He said that means this part of the law places an economic burden on companies, giving them standing to challenge it."

This means that simply any economic burden on companies gives them a right to question the legality of a law? That's total BS. If a company is burdened by any cost, the legality of any law requiring the task which would be responsible for the cost, is a standing to challenge the law? BS big time. Sounds like a false premise by the judge..a judge legislating from his bench. BS big time.

The businesses have no basis for challenging this law.

Lochner was overturned by the Supreme Court many, many years ago.

The idea that your profit margin supercedes any state law that might encroach upon it has no validity.

This is utter nonsense. Every business incurs administrative costs to comply with laws. Otherwise, no business could possibly file tax returns, maintain payroll records, reconcile accounts, etc.

I have never seen people fight so hard to keep our laws from being enforced. What the hell is going on in this country. They come up with every excuse possible to thwart the laws. We need a President with some guts to stop this nonsense.

I am "hoping" that perhaps this was the direction the judge is going.........

So, even if the judge would throw out the requirement that "FORCES" the employers to use the e-verify system----it means that the employers will not have any type of defense if they are caught hiring illegals!!!

Whereas, with the system---they can say---we used the e-verify and here are the results....The business does not get in any trouble if an attempt was made to verify that the employee is legal.

However, if they do not use the system and they are caught hiring illegals----they are automatically busted and fined---

Let me see if i'm getting this right. They are going to wait until businesses have been negatively impacted because they knowingly decided to higher illegals??? A company can hire an illegal alien on purpose. They get caught employing the illegal and are reprimanded for using illegal business practices - and they feel they can sue the government because it's not fair to them???
That is wrong on so many levels. Here's a few right off the top of my head:
1 - they can sue for getting caught doing something illegal?
2 - can businesses sue for doing the right thing and being negatively affected by those who don't?
3 - what is wrong with this country...

Originally Posted by thedude

Let me see if i'm getting this right. They are going to wait until businesses have been negatively impacted because they knowingly decided to higher illegals??? A company can hire an illegal alien on purpose. They get caught employing the illegal and are reprimanded for using illegal business practices - and they feel they can sue the government because it's not fair to them???
That is wrong on so many levels. Here's a few right off the top of my head:
1 - they can sue for getting caught doing something illegal?
2 - can businesses sue for doing the right thing and being negatively affected by those who don't?
3 - what is wrong with this country...

I "think" that the judge meant.............

---Legal citizens being fired due to the new law, even though they are legal

---Employers losing their licenses----even though they were using E-Verify to screen their employees.

If a person is legal, they have recourse and there would be no reason for the employer to not retain or rehire them. It might cause some difficulty, and that would be sad, but we are all suffering difficulties due to this.

Perhaps this will make citizens trot down to the SS office and get 'their papers in order' so to speak.

I wonder how effective the 'e-verify' system is? What exactly does it verify? That there is such a number? Does it match the number with an age, sex, DOB? Anyone know?