Hazleton, PA Anti-Immigrant Law Is Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules
Neal...@aol.com
|
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE |
CONTACT: ACLU [1] |
Hazleton, PA Anti-Immigrant Law Is Unconstitutional, Federal Appeals Court Rules
PHILADELPHIA - September 9 - The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
today issued a sweeping decision striking down as unconstitutional the city of
Hazleton's law that would punish landlords and employers who are accused of
renting to or hiring anyone the city classifies as an "illegal
alien."
The case, Lozano v. Hazleton, has been closely watched
across the country because the Hazleton ordinance has served as a model for
similar laws nationwide and was challenged by civil rights groups in a lengthy
trial. The suit has been underway for more than four years in the federal
district and circuit courts. Today's unanimous appeals court decision is the
latest legal victory against discriminatory state and local laws that target
immigrants and invite racial profiling against Latinos and others who appear
"foreign." Many cities like Fremont, Nebraska and Summerville, South Carolina
have voluntarily tabled or blocked these laws under legal pressure and local
opposition.
"This is a major defeat for the misguided, divisive
and expensive anti-immigrant strategy that Hazleton has tried to export to the
rest of the country," said Omar Jadwat, a staff attorney with the American Civil
Liberties Union Immigrants' Rights Project. "The Constitution does not allow
states and cities to interfere with federal immigration laws or to adopt
measures that discriminate against Latino and immigrant
communities."
Hazleton adopted its first anti-immigrant ordinance in
August 2006. A civil rights coalition including the ACLU, the ACLU of
Pennsylvania, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the Community Justice Project and the law
firm Cozen O'Connor immediately filed a lawsuit challenging the law on behalf of
Hazleton residents, landlords and business owners. Today's ruling upholds a July
2007 ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
concluding that the Hazleton ordinances were preempted by federal law governing
immigration.
"Hazleton's discriminatory law decimated a town that used to
be bustling with life and commerce," said Vic Walczak, Legal Director of the
ACLU of Pennsylvania and a lead attorney in the case. "Divisive laws like these
destroy communities and distract from the very real problems that local
governments are facing across the country. Immigration reform needs to come from
the federal level. Local ordinances like these have a toxic effect on the
community, injecting suspicion and discriminatory attitudes where they didn't
previously exist."
During the trial, Hazleton officials claimed that
undocumented immigrants were responsible for bankrupting the city, driving up
healthcare costs and increasing local crime. In fact, the evidence at trial
showed that from 2000-2005, Latino immigrants actually helped to transform a
huge city budget deficit into a surplus, that the private hospital system made a
$4 million profit and that the crime rate actually fell.
"The Latino
plaintiffs who brought this lawsuit knew this law was intended to drive them out
of Hazleton," said Cesar Perales, President and General Counsel of LatinoJustice
PRLDEF. "The court clearly recognized this danger."
Friend-of-the-court
briefs opposing the Hazleton law were filed by numerous civil rights, religious,
labor and business organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the
labor union coalition Change to Win, the American Jewish Committee, Capuchin
Franciscan Friars, Lutheran Children and Family Services, the Friends Committee
on National Legislation, Legal Momentum, the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law, the Southern Poverty Law Center, the Asian Pacific American Legal
Center, the Anti-Defamation League and the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund.
Related issues involving state authority to enact laws
addressing immigrant employment are pending before the Supreme Court in the
case, Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria, brought by the ACLU and other
groups challenging an Arizona statute.
Attorneys on the case include
Jadwat, Lucas Guttentag, Jennifer Chang Newell and Lee Gelernt of the ACLU
Immigrants' Rights Project; Walczak and Mary Catherine Roper from the ACLU of
Pennsylvania; Shamaine Daniels of the Community Justice Project; Foster Maer,
Ghita Schwarz and Jackson Chin of LatinoJustice PRLDEF; and Thomas G. Wilkinson
and Ilan Rosenberg of Cozen O'Connor.
The ruling is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/lozano-v-hazleton-opinion
[2]
A video with interviews with ACLU
attorneys and clients is online at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8vr66MYZn8 [3]
More information on the case, Lozano v.
Hazleton, is online at: www.aclu.org/hazleton
[4]
[4]
More information on the case, Chamber of
Commerce v. Candelaria, is online at: www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/chamber-commerce-v-candelaria
[5]
###
The ACLU conserves America's original civic values working in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in the United States by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org