9th Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Arizona’s Immigration Statute
In 2007 the State of
Arizona
enacted the “Legal Arizona Workers Act”, designed to punish those who hire illegal aliens by revoking their
Arizona
business licenses.
The law further required all
Arizona
employers to use the federal E-Verify system.
A coalition of various business and civil rights organizations, including the United States and Arizona Chambers of Commerce, brought suit to challenge the law’s provisions, primarily on the grounds that the state legislation is preempted by the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. The U.S. District for the District of Arizona ruled that the
Arizona
law was valid, and was not preempted by federal legislation. That decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
On Sept. 17, a three judge panel for the 9th Circuit issued its opinion upholding the U.S. District Court’s ruling that the
Arizona
law is valid. The 9th Circuit held:
- That the federal immigration law (which expressly preempts state immigration regulation, except through licensing and similar laws) does not preempt the
Arizona
“Legal Arizona Workers Act” because the
Arizona
law falls within the meaning of the licensing law exception.
- That the law’s mandatory imposition on all Arizona employers of the federal E-Verify Program (a computer based system, voluntary under federal law, that uses Social Security Administration data to verify employee work authorization information) is not impliedly preempted without an express prohibition by the U.S. Congress against states enacting their own E-Verify legislation.
- That the
Arizona
law (which does not guarantee employers an opportunity to rebut illegal immigration status of a worker before their business licenses are revoked) does not violate due process. The Court of Appeals holds that the
Arizona
law should be interpreted to allow employers to rebut the determination that an employee is an unauthorized alien.
In its decision, the Court of Appeals made the observation that to date no effort has been made to enforce the
Arizona
statute and that if and when the
Arizona
law is actually enforced against employers other challenges regarding enforcement may be considered.
The 9th Circuit’s decision is in direct contravention to the U.S. District Court decision in the Hazelton,
Pa.
case that overturned that municipality’s immigration ordinance, and also to the findings made by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma that issued a preliminary injunction earlier this year resulting in a stay of
Oklahoma
’s immigration statute.
Unless the U.S. Congress rectifies these matters by enacting comprehensive immigration reform, it would appear that these conflicting court decisions will ultimately have to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For more information, e-mail Carlos Gutierrez, or call him at 800-368-5242 x8242.
[
return to top ]
|
