Thread: ACLU whines about AZ judge's decision.

Civil Rights Coalition Argues Arizona Employer Sanctions Law Is Illegal

The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Arizona, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC), the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the law firm of Altshuler Berzon filed a lawsuit challenging Arizona's new law, the Legal Arizona Workers Act, in federal court in December 2007 on behalf of Valle del Sol, Chicanos por la Causa, and Somos America, three Arizona-based organizations. The coalition charges that the new law is preempted by federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution.

The act, which is scheduled to take effect January 1, 2008, introduced a new state law that regulates employment based on work authorization status — even though there is a comprehensive federal law on the same topic. The act unlawfully seeks to impose sanctions far beyond what the federal government allows by completely closing down any business that, according to the state, has committed two violations in a three-year period. In addition, the act requires all Arizona businesses to check their employees’ work authorization status by using the flawed federal Basic Pilot program (recently renamed e-Verify). The Basic Pilot system, which the federal government established as a voluntary, experimental, and temporary system to test the concept of electronic employee verification, is rife with errors and frequently leads to problems for lawful workers. Congress has repeatedly refused to make the system permanent or mandatory.

An earlier lawsuit, Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America v. Napolitano, was filed on November 14, 2007. That case was dismissed without a ruling on the law on December 7, 2007. The coalition filed the present case on December 12, 2007.


Legal Documents
> Valle del Sol v. Goddard - Application for Temporary Restraining Order (12/12/2007)
> Valle del Sol v. Goddard - Complaint (12/12/2007)
> Valle del Sol v. Goddard - Memo of Points and Authorities in Support of Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (12/12/2007)
> Chicanos por la Causa vs. Napolitano Complaint (11/14/2007)
> Chicanos Por La Causa vs. Napolitano Supplemental Memo of Points (11/14/2007)
> Defendents' Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (11/14/2007)
> Reply brief filed by Chicanos Por La Causa (11/14/2007)



Press
> Civil Rights Coalition Continues to Challenge Arizona Employer Sanctions Law (12/21/2007)
> Civil Rights Coalition Files New Lawsuit Challenging Arizona Employer Sanctions Law (12/12/2007)
> Civil Rights Coalition to Argue in Court Today that Arizona Employer Sanctions Law is Illegal (11/14/2007)

Click on this link and scroll to the bottom for PDF files on the plaintiffs (illegal alien employers).
http://www.aclu.org/immigrants/discrim/ ... 71114.html

What is the posting date of all of this??

Does the judge's ruling today----as well as the 9th's ruling in regard to the appeal----mean that they cannot go any further with this??

If it is filed in Federal Court, who would be listening to the case???

Originally Posted by Bren4824

What is the posting date of all of this??

Does the judge's ruling today----as well as the 9th's ruling in regard to the appeal----mean that they cannot go any further with this??

If it is filed in Federal Court, who would be listening to the case???

The 9th Circuit.

From the description given in another article it sounds like the decision rebuffing the open borders boosters was handed down by a panel. If it was, then the next step for them would be trying to get an en banc rehearing. If that's denied, then they can always appeal to SCOTUS. If the Supreme Court denies them a writ of cert, then it's over for the time being, and they would need to work on another challenge to the law.

Originally Posted by Shapka

Originally Posted by Bren4824

What is the posting date of all of this??

Does the judge's ruling today----as well as the 9th's ruling in regard to the appeal----mean that they cannot go any further with this??

If it is filed in Federal Court, who would be listening to the case???

The 9th Circuit.

From the description given in another article it sounds like the decision rebuffing the open borders boosters was handed down by a panel. If it was, then the next step for them would be trying to get an en banc rehearing. If that's denied, then they can always appeal to SCOTUS. If the Supreme Court denies them a writ of cert, then it's over for the time being, and they would need to work on another challenge to the law.

During the hearing today, the judge ruled that the law would not be delayed and will go into effect on January 1.

Then they appealed it to the 9th. And the 9th heard it and ruled on it today as well!!

This is the response from the 9th (below). Is your response above the same then??

If it is the same, then it means that they will be appealing to the Supreme Court---right??? And, this could take forever....right??



Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2007 12:32 pm Post subject: Brking News and it is Good/Appeals court won't block AZ Law

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Published: 12.21.2007

BULLETIN: Appeals court won't block employer-sanctions law
By Howard Fischer
CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals refused late Friday to issue a stay preventing Arizona's new employer-sanctions law from going into effect Jan. 1. The move came just hours after a federal judge in Phoenix rejected a request by business groups and others to block the state from enforcing its new employer sanctions law.

Judge Neil Wake said any delay in implementing the law which allows suspension or revocation of state licenses of companies that knowingly hire undocumented workers would harm the state and, in particular, legal Arizona residents.

"Those who suffer the most from unauthorized alien labor are those whom federal and Arizona law most explicitly protect,'' Wake said.
"They are the competing lawful workers, many unskilled, low-wage, sometimes near or under the margin of poverty, who strain in individual competition and in a wage economy depressed by the great and expanding number of people who will work for less,'' the judge continued.
"If the act is suspended, whether for a month or for years, the human cost for the least among us, measured by each person's continued deprivation, multiplied by their number, will be a great quantum.''

Conversely, Wake said the challengers to the law have not proven they will suffer any sort of hardship if the law takes effect as scheduled Jan. 1. He pointed out the county attorneys who would investigate complaints against employers all said in court they would not file charges against any violators before Feb. 1. Wake said that gives him time to consider the legal arguments of the groups who contend the statute is unconstitutional.

Nor was Wake convinced companies will suffer from the other requirement of the law that they check the legal status of new employees through the federal government's E-Verify system. He said their attorneys offered only "sweeping generalities'' of harm, mostly related to the cost of using the program.

He pointed out that none of the groups that actually sued claim they don't have a computer or Internet access.

"The only cost is employee time in learning the program ... and assisting new employees who wish to communicate with the federal government to resolve out-of-date government records,'' Wake wrote in his 29-page order. "That would be a few hundred to a few thousand dollars a year for the large majority of employers.''

Wake acknowledged there is a debate in this country about whether the benefits of having undocumented workers in this country, including lower labor expenses for employers, outweigh the costs.

But he said that is a decision not for him but instead for elected officials. And he said both Congress and now the Arizona Legislature have decided that the detrimental effects of illegal immigration "prevail over all who benefit from unauthorized alien labor.''

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/printDS/217304

From the story it sounds like one judge, Neil Wake, penned the decision on the law's constitutionality for the 9th Circuit-which is the largest circuit court in the country. The 9th doesn't usually hear these cases with all of its members present when it reviews them en banc. Cases are heard by a three judge panel, so I assume this was one of the judges with seniority.