TX: Judge Temporarily Halts Farmers Branch Rental Ban

Judge temporarily halts FB rental ban

Ruling cites conflict with U.S. law; backers say voters' will ignored


12:00 AM CDT on Tuesday, May 22, 2007
By STEPHANIE SANDOVAL / The Dallas Morning News
ssandoval@dallasnews.com

FARMERS BRANCH – A day before the city planned to start enforcing an ordinance banning apartment rentals to most illegal immigrants, a federal judge put a temporary stop to the plan, ruling that it "conflicts with federal law."

Legal experts said the ruling Monday by U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay signals that the ordinance may face trouble in federal court despite Farmers Branch voters' overwhelming approval of it May 12. Federal courts have issued rulings stopping other cities from implementing similar laws.

Judge Lindsay, in a 20-page ruling granting a temporary restraining order, said Farmers Branch had wrongly used federal laws governing who receives housing subsidies to write its ordinance and had created its own classification system for determining which noncitizens may rent an apartment in the city.

"The court recognizes that illegal immigration is a major problem in this country, and one who asserts otherwise ignores reality," Judge Lindsay wrote. "The court also fully understands the frustration of cities attempting to address a national problem that the federal government should handle; however, such frustration, no matter how great, cannot serve as a basis to pass an ordinance that conflicts with federal law."


Criticism, approval

Farmers Branch City Council members criticized the judge for ignoring residents' approval of the ordinance, which would require apartment managers to verify that renters are U.S. citizens or legal immigrants before leasing to them, with some exceptions. Violators face fines of up to $500, and each day would be considered a separate violation.

"I am disappointed that the judge chose to ignore the will of the people," said City Council member Tim O'Hare, who proposed the ordinance. "However, I am hopeful ... the judge will not grant the preliminary injunction and allow us to enforce the ordinance as voted on by two-thirds of our residents."

Marisol Perez, staff attorney for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said the judge's decision is in line with court decisions elsewhere that have stopped similar laws.

"We are pleased the judge has recognized this ordinance is illegal and in violation of the U.S. Constitution," Ms. Perez said. "This sends a clear message that these types of ordinances should not be passed by local cities."

A temporary restraining order is issued to preserve the status quo until a hearing can be held. A hearing must be held within 10 days to determine whether the order will be lifted or whether a temporary injunction will be put in place to prevent the city from implementing the law until the case goes to trial, attorneys on both sides said.

"Immigration has historically and constitutionally been an issue that's delegated to the federal government, and local governments should not be involved in enforcing immigration laws," said Barbara Hines, clinical-law professor at the University of Texas and director of the university's Immigration Clinic.

Dr. Hines said that though a temporary restraining order is just that – temporary – until a determination can be made whether to issue a preliminary injunction, and a preliminary injunction wouldn't even mean the city would lose at trial, it is an important step.

"I think a ruling striking down the Farmers Branch ordinance [with a preliminary injunction] would send an important signal to other communities that are contemplating a similar ordinance," she said.


Supremacy clause

Judge Lindsay said in the order that because the city is trying to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the ordinance is in violation of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution. Lawyers for the plaintiffs have argued that the ordinance ventured into an area – immigration – reserved exclusively for the federal government.

That argument has been accepted by federal courts in lawsuits brought against Hazleton, Pa., and Escondido, Calif., which also adopted ordinances against illegal immigration.

The court criticized the city for using federal regulations governing which noncitizens may receive housing subsidies instead of adopting federal standards that determine who is here legally.

The ruling is a good indication the ordinance will be overturned after further hearings, said William A. Brewer III, an attorney representing some of the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit

"This is really game, set and match," he said. "He is reading the law the same way we do, this ordinance as being unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law."

Residents who support the ordinance have criticized opponents for pursuing the lawsuits and petitioning the court to halt the city from implementing the ordinance after residents voted in favor of it. Other supporters say opponents, who petitioned the City Council to put the matter to a public vote and called themselves Let the Voters Decide, should let the matter rest now that voters have decided.

"I do not understand why we have a vote on it and it doesn't seem to matter to the judge," City Council member Bill Moses said.

Quote:

---

Judge Lindsay said in the order that because the city is trying to regulate immigration differently from the federal government, the ordinance is in violation of the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

---

The city is actually trying to regulate illegal immigration, that is the difference between Farmers Branch and the federal government.

If the federal goobermint would enforce the laws, the cities and states wouldn't have to try. The funny thing is, that AMERICANS have to provide social security numbers and credit checks have to be run in order to even rent an apt............the old double standard is alive and well. Same thing for bank accounts, but B of A and others are pandering to illegals by allowing them to show only a Mexican Matricula card, which MEXICAN banks don't even accept. I have had B of A since 1988, and recently moved to IBC, because they DON'T take pander.......for now, anyway.

OI! The people have voted and now this idiot judge is going to stand in their way?

Hey I'm about to dump my BofA card too.

Hey Dagmar, just wanted to say that I love your "remember the Alamo" items. I just checked them out! My dh has an ancestor who died at the Alamo, Daniel Cloud.

Isn't IBC owned by a Mexican Corporation? I heard that it was and that is probably why they won't accept the matricular card.

No judge should ever be allowed to overrule the voice of the voters. No judge should ever be allowed to create legislation. They also should not be allowed to stay in office for life. That is crap about the constitution. If the feds won't protect this country then the states and cities should. Cee

Here's some more info. on this judge:

http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/judges/lindsay.html

Yes, this is a Clinton-appointed judge. 'Nuff said.

Moved to news section and added to the homepage

http://www.alipac.us/modules.php?name=N ... e&sid=2188

sandoval has written past articles in the dallas paper and
has done nothing but critisize the city and the ordinances

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoDawgs

Hey Dagmar, just wanted to say that I love your "remember the Alamo" items. I just checked them out! My dh has an ancestor who died at the Alamo, Daniel Cloud.

---

Thanks, I got the names of the defenders from the Daughters of the Alamo roster.

Daniel Cloud from KY? He's the second to the bottom on the left hand column of names on the flag.
8)

"No judge should ever be allowed to overrule the voice of the voters. No judge should ever be allowed to create legislation. They also should not be allowed to stay in office for life. That is crap about the constitution. "


No judge, jury, nothing should override the voice of the people! We should start removing these traitor, scumbags one by one from office!

OPINION Viewpoints


In Farmers Branch and Washington, the will of the people is being ignored




06:58 AM CDT on Wednesday, May 23, 2007

If there is any force of nature stronger than the zeal of posturing politicians, it might be the propensity of unelected judges to thwart the public will.

In the past week, we've seen both.

Last week we saw the suspicious spectacle of the so-called bipartisan, landmark deal struck to send a proposal down the congressional pipeline that would instantly legalize millions of people who broke our laws to get here. That bill has since been riddled with attempted amendments so vast that it may wind up unrecognizable or unpassable.

Then this week, U.S. District Judge Sam Lindsay issued a ruling asserting that the Farmers Branch ban on renting apartments to illegal aliens "conflicts with federal law."

First to the rental ban. I don't want to be Generic Hard-Line Columnist Guy on the immigration issue. I don't want to criticize Judge Lindsay's order simply because it interrupts something I believe in.

So I read it in its entirety to see if I could find any objective flaws. The concluding paragraph contains a whopper. "The court concludes that only the federal government may determine whether an individual is legally in the United States."

Excuse me, your honor? As millions of illegals have flooded into our nation, countless workplaces have been turned into de facto turnstiles for determining employment worthiness.

What is required to prove one's legal residency as one applies for a job? The same birth certificate, passport or green card that Farmers Branch wants apartment owners to ask for.

It is absurd to assert that a federal government office is the only place where people are asked to present evidence of legal residency or citizenship.

The judge further complains that Farmers Branch's criteria for rental-worthiness, which he derisively refers to as a "scheme," establish standards that differ from the federal definition of legal status.

That much is true, and kindness is at its root. Ordinance 2093 contains some exemptions for the elderly and family members of the "undocumented," so maybe the city just needs to dive in and ban 80-year-olds and parents of small children in order to achieve the consistency the judge seeks.

Presuming that is what he seeks. There is enough of a prickly tone in his writing that some activism may be afoot here. Farmers Branch officials will do their part to craft an ordinance that passes constitutional muster. Then we'll see if Judge Lindsay does his part and lets the will of the people come to pass.

In Washington, the people's will became clear about 30 seconds after a gaggle of self-congratulatory senators climbed down from the lectern last week after announcing the "compromise" that would legalize millions of unlawful immigrants.

People on the right didn't like it. People on the left didn't like it. Not one union endorsed it. The plan for nudging it along its path by Memorial Day has now been scrapped as critics have properly asserted that this 1,000-page beast might deserve a stronger leash than its protectors wanted.

It is easy to discern that while this bill may not meet the technical definition of amnesty, it meets a solid definition of weak, bad law. It is a wrist slap to millions who have broken our laws. It is a free pass to countless employers who have knowingly hired them.

It is a sucker punch to anyone on the entry ramp to the middle class – millions of people of various races and means who can use the jobs this bill will hand on silver platters to people who in many cases have no intention of becoming citizens.

It is filled with ridiculous rules that few will follow. Worst of all, it is a message that we remain unserious about maintaining tight borders and tough laws.

In the Farmers Branch case, Judge Lindsay needs a clearer view of what cities may do under the Constitution. Under the U.S. Capitol dome, our leaders need to ditch the phony air of imagined accomplishment and buckle down for a meaningful battle where someone wins and someone loses.

From Dallas Morning News.