Pa. ruling heartens foes of Ariz. law

Judge blocks city's bid to fight illegal migration
Daniel González
The Arizona Republic
Jul. 27, 2007 12:00 AM

Business groups taking legal action to block Arizona's new employer-sanctions law were elated Thursday after a federal judge struck down a similar anti-illegal-immigration law in Hazleton, Pa.

The judge ruled that the Hazleton law is unconstitutional because it usurps federal law in trying to control illegal immigration. Two business groups, the Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform and the Arizona Contractors Association, make the same argument in a lawsuit seeking to block the state's employer-sanctions law from taking effect on Jan. 1.

"What this means is that a federal court has reached the same conclusion we have reached in challenging the Arizona law as unconstitutional," said David Selden, a labor lawyer with Ballard Spahr who filed the complaint.

The ruling in Pennsylvania is not binding in other states. It could, however, sway other federal courts across the country to issue the same ruling on similar laws.

In finding the Hazleton law unconstitutional, U.S. District Judge James Munley said the city's measure was pre-empted by federal law and would violate due-process rights.

"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme," Munley wrote in a 206-page decision.

The city's Illegal Immigration Relief Act sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants, and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs.

Arizona's employer-sanctions law does not have a housing provision. The law would revoke the business license of any company found to have knowingly hired an undocumented immigrant a second time.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said he plans to "vigorously" defend the employer-sanctions law in court. The pending litigation, however, prevented him from commenting directly on the Hazleton ruling and its potential impact on Arizona's law.

In general, however, states have broader authority than cities when passing laws.

"Our clear difference is a local law versus a state law. That could be a major distinction. I just don't know until I have a chance" to compare the two laws and read the judge's ruling, Goddard said.

State Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, who wrote the employer-sanctions law, doesn't believe the ruling in Pennsylvania will have any bearing in Arizona. Arizona's law was crafted to fall within the inherent right of states, he said.

He also dismissed the judge's ruling and predicted the Hazleton law will be upheld on appeal.

"We knew he would (strike it down)," Pearce said. "He's a liberal Clinton appointee."

The Associated Press contributed to this article.


http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepubli ... e0727.html