Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals hears arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona’s employer-sanctions law
In a case that is undoubtedly being closely watched by immigration advocates and opponents around the country, a panel of judges for the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments last Thursday on the constitutionality of Arizona’s employer-sanctions law. In the case of Arizona Contractors Associations, Inc. v. Candelaria, (Case Nos. CV 07-02496 and CV-07-02518), plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of a law that allows the government to revoke or suspend the license of any business that hires an immigrant who is not authorized to work in the country. According to published reports, the appellate judges were skeptical towards arguments that Arizona has no legal authority to impose its own requirements on employers as a way to thwart the hiring of illegal workers.
The “Legal Arizona Workers Act”, which has been in effect in Arizona since January, has been widely debated. Proponents believe that its enforcement would curve the flow of illegal immigrants from Mexico looking for better wages. Opponents of the law argue that the law places an undue burden on businesses to check and verify each employee’s work eligibility. The law requires that employers run the names of potential employees through an online database that validates social security numbers and immigration status. A federal judge in Phoenix ruled in February that the law passed Constitutional muster.
For additional information on the Legal Arizona Workers Act, see Allott, Ann. “Ann Allott on Arizona and Illinois Laws (and Lawsuits) on Undocumented Workers.” LexisNexis® Expert Commentary.
While the Candelaria case is the first employer-law case to reach the nation’s appellate level, it joins a small, but ever growing number of conflicting federal district court opinions. In Gray v. City of Valley Park, Missouri, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7238 (E.D. Mo. Jan 31, 2008), the court granted the City’s motion for summary judgment and upheld a city ordinance prohibiting the employment of illegal immigrants. The decision has been appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals.
In Villas at Parkside Partners v. The City of Farmers Branch, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42452 (N.D.Tx. May 28, 2008), a federal judge, expressly rejecting both Candelaria and Gray, granted plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction barring enforcement of a city statute that required proof of citizenship prior to renting or leasing residential property. The court held that the city was preempted by federal law. Likewise, in Lorenzo v. City of Hazelton, 06-CV-01586-JMM (M.D. Penn. 2006), the judge held federal law preempted a Hazelton statute entitled the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act” which required landlords and employers to verify the legal immigration status of renters and potential hires.
We can expect to see more immigration-related statutes and more court challenges as communities grow increasingly frustrated with the federal government’s efforts to police undocumented and illegal immigrants. With the 8th and 9th Circuits expected to issue opinions this summer on the issue, it may not be long before state and local immigration statutes like those in Gray, Candelaria, Hazelton and Farmer’s Branch are on the radar of the United States Supreme Court.