PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court to look at Arizona's employer-sanctions law


Jeanfromfillmore
12-04-2010, 11:13 PM
Supreme Court to look at Arizona's employer-sanctions law
Arizona again will be in the national spotlight regarding illegal immigration when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on whether the state can punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.
At issue is the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, commonly called the employer-sanctions law, which was among the first in which a state tried to assume control of what previously had been strictly a federal function. The landmark has withstood challenges in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which have said the law is constitutional.
The act emboldened Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who unlike other sheriffs across the state has used it to conduct 40 raids on businesses accused of employing illegal immigrants. Those busts have resulted in 308 arrests for identity theft and forgery, while two employers have faced civil sanctions.
Supporters and opponents of the law agree the Supreme Court's ruling could have sweeping ramifications. If the law is upheld, other states likely would consider similar legislation. The ruling also could influence the future of Arizona's broader immigration legislation, Senate Bill 1070. That law, enacted this year, created a firestorm and spurred national boycotts by making it a state crime to be in the country illegally. A federal judge has blocked parts of SB 1070 from taking effect, and debate over its constitutionality is expected to reach the Supreme Court.
Glenn Hamer, president and chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which opposes the sanctions law, said he is glad it is before the high court.
"We will finally have some clarity in what states can do and cannot do in the space of illegal immigration," said Hamer, whose organization is one of 11 U.S. and Arizona business groups suing the state over the law's constitutionality. "Now you have a crazy-quilt patchwork of immigration laws around the country on the state and local levels."
Hamer said the business community opposes the law because it forces Arizona companies to "play under a different set of rules" regarding employment and that sanctions for employing illegal immigrants should be applied at the federal level so that they are uniform across the country.
National significance
Arizona's law punishes companies by suspending or revoking their business licenses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, that validates the Social Security numbers and immigration status of new hires.
Opponents contend the law is unconstitutional because no lawmaking body other than Congress can establish employment standards and mandate punishment in relation to immigration issues. They also say a state cannot require businesses to enroll and participate in E-Verify.
The state, however, has successfully convinced lower courts that the Legal Arizona Workers Act relies on an exemption in the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act allowing local and state governments to take civil action when it comes to licensing businesses.
The courts also have ruled there is nothing in federal law that prohibits a state from mandating that employers use E-Verify.
"We obviously feel good about our position. So far, every judge who has looked at this has accepted our arguments," said Arizona Solicitor General Mary O'Grady, who has defended the law and will argue before the Supreme Court.
Paul Bender, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in constitutional law, said if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' rulings, then other states will "take advantage of the licensing exception" to pass similar employer-sanctions laws.
"It's potentially significant nationwide if they uphold this program," said Bender.
Little enforcement
While the employer-sanctions law is receiving national attention, it has punished two Arizona companies since it went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. A third company, Scottsdale Art Factory, has its case pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.
The two other cases involve Danny's Subway, a Phoenix sandwich shop that was forced to close for two days in 2010 for violating the law, and Waterworld. The water park, formerly in northeast Phoenix, had its business license suspended for 10 days for violating the law. The punishment for Waterworld was symbolic because the company was out of business when the penalty was announced in December 2009.
Except in Maricopa County, the law has had a minimal effect. Many county prosecutors have not spent state funds to enforce the law because there are so few complaints.
Yet in the state's most populous county, Arpaio has used the law to conduct 40 investigations into businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants.
The first investigation came one month after the law took effect. The latest was Nov. 15, at Nunez Creative Landscaping in El Mirage. In all, there were 452 arrests, 308 of those for identity theft and forgery. Meanwhile, 131 individuals who were suspected of being in the country illegally were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Arpaio said he believes the employer-sanctions law has been effective in getting illegal immigrants to leave Arizona.
"If you look at what we are doing, we are the only ones doing it," Arpaio said.
Arpaio said law enforcement is hampered in filing civil lawsuits against businesses who hire illegal immigrants because the sanctions law does not give prosecutors subpoena power to obtain records. The business community was successful during the 2010 legislative session in keeping that power from prosecutors.
Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, Arpaio said he still plans to continue workplace raids.
"The Supreme Court will not change the way I do business," he said.
Unique case
The employer-sanctions hearing comes just more than a month after the Supreme Court heard a legal challenge to Arizona's private-school tax-credit program and whether it violates the separation of church and state.
The high court also agreed last week to hear arguments next spring on the constitutionality of a key component of Arizona's public campaign-finance system. And, arguments over SB 1070 are expected to reach the high court.
Bender, who argued the case against the tax-credit program before the Supreme Court, said it is extremely rare for one state to have a handful of cases before the Supreme Court in such a short time.
"Arizona is beginning to play a large role in constitutional law in this country," Bender said.
The employer-sanctions case also has a unique twist in that Justice Elena Kagan is recused from the case because of a possible conflict of interest.
The former U.S. solicitor general will not vote because her former office in May asked the high court to consider a challenge to the law.
That leaves eight justices to hear the case. If it results in a 4-4 tie among the remaining justices, the lower-court rulings will stand and the employer-sanctions law will remain in effect.


Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/05/20101205legal-arizona-workers-act-questioned.html#ixzz17DsfdoZd
Supreme Court to hear employer sanctions case
The nation's highest court will consider this coming Wednesday whether Arizona can legally punish companies found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.
Justices will hear arguments by a coalition of civil rights and business groups who contend the 2007 law infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration.
A federal judge in Phoenix did not see it that way. And his ruling was upheld more than a year ago by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
But what's different now is that the Obama administration has added its voice to the debate. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, in legal papers filed with the high court, argued the Arizona law specifically runs afoul of a federal law that bars states from imposing any sort of penalties on those who employ people not in the country legally.
Hanging in the balance is what is formally known as the Legal Arizona Worker Act. It was approved by the Republican Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano over the objections of business interests.
In fact, Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration that is trying to kill the law, said at the time she approved it "because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs."
Napolitano, through an aide, declined to comment on the current fight.
But a ruling striking down the law could have even broader effects: If the justices conclude that federal immigration laws totally preempt any state rules, that likely would be the death knell for SB1070, the controversial Arizona law approved earlier this year to give police more power to detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants.
The law is billed by supporters as Arizona's attempt to dry up the supply of jobs as a way of deterring illegal immigration.
But the Immigration Reform and Control Act, approved by Congress in 1986, precludes states and cities from imposing any civil or criminal penalties on companies for hiring illegal immigrants. The same law, however, allows states to have their own "licensing or similar laws."
Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he crafted the law to fit that exception by making the suspension or revocation of a state license the sole penalty for hiring undocumented workers. The rulings of the trial and appellate courts would appear to back his contention.
But attorney Julie Pace, who is representing the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the judges got it only half right.
She conceded that states can take away business licenses.
Pace argued, though, that can happen only after a firm is found guilty by a federal court or similar federal process of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. She said state judges lack legal authority to make that decision.
Katyal, in his own arguments to the Supreme Court, agreed that the procedures under the Arizona law to determine guilt or innocence of a business owner run afoul of federal regulations.
He said there are procedures that cover cases where federal officials accuse employers of hiring undocumented workers, including the ability to appeal. That, he said, is not the case in Arizona.
"Proceedings (under the Arizona law) occur before local judges, with no possibility of federal district court review," Katyal said. And he said Arizona law, unlike its federal counterpart, has no provision banning discrimination.
Pearce, who will be attending the court hearing, disagreed.
He said the law has safeguards for companies, starting with the requirement that prosecutors prove that an employer knowingly broke the law in order to obtain a conviction. He said that protects them against prosecution for innocent mistakes.
And Pearce said the law also gives a "rebuttable presumption" of innocence to any firm that used the federal government's online E-Verify system to check whether new employees are legally entitled to work in this country.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who also will be in Washington for the hearing, said that, for her, the issue is simpler.
"I think we have a responsibility given that our borders aren't secure," she said. The governor said the state needs "to do whatever is necessary" to curb illegal immigration.
Brewer said the question of preemption would be an issue only if the federal government were doing its job.
"In lieu of that, Arizona's stepping up and trying to do the best job that we can given the tools that we are enabled with by the decision of the Legislature," she said.
A separate part of the legal challenge deals with that E-Verify program itself.
The law specifically requires companies to use the federal database with all new workers. Lower courts rejected arguments by foes of the legislation that such a mandate is illegal.
The newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, will not participate in this hearing because the Department of Justice filed its objections to the Arizona law while she was still solicitor general.
A ruling is not likely until spring.
http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_71ec37ff-5d78-5ce9-94f1-fd5265e12bd2.html

Twoller
12-05-2010, 11:30 AM
These links deserve a repost. Recall again that people who hire illegals are most likely legal immigrants or naturalized citizens themselves. If states cannot police against illegals and they cannot police against employers, then there is absolutely no policing at all against illegal immigration.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2010/12/05/20101205legal-arizona-workers-act-questioned.html#ixzz17DsfdoZd

Supreme Court to look at Arizona's employer-sanctions law

Ruling will likely affect legislation across the nation

by Craig Harris - Dec. 5, 2010 12:00 AM

The Arizona Republic

Arizona again will be in the national spotlight regarding illegal immigration when the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments Wednesday on whether the state can punish employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers.

At issue is the 2007 Legal Arizona Workers Act, commonly called the employer-sanctions law, which was among the first in which a state tried to assume control of what previously had been strictly a federal function. The landmark has withstood challenges in U.S. District Court and the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which have said the law is constitutional.

The act emboldened Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who unlike other sheriffs across the state has used it to conduct 40 raids on businesses accused of employing illegal immigrants. Those busts have resulted in 308 arrests for identity theft and forgery, while two employers have faced civil sanctions.

Supporters and opponents of the law agree the Supreme Court's ruling could have sweeping ramifications. If the law is upheld, other states likely would consider similar legislation. The ruling also could influence the future of Arizona's broader immigration legislation, Senate Bill 1070. That law, enacted this year, created a firestorm and spurred national boycotts by making it a state crime to be in the country illegally. A federal judge has blocked parts of SB 1070 from taking effect, and debate over its constitutionality is expected to reach the Supreme Court.

Glenn Hamer, president and chief executive of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, which opposes the sanctions law, said he is glad it is before the high court.

"We will finally have some clarity in what states can do and cannot do in the space of illegal immigration," said Hamer, whose organization is one of 11 U.S. and Arizona business groups suing the state over the law's constitutionality. "Now you have a crazy-quilt patchwork of immigration laws around the country on the state and local levels."

Hamer said the business community opposes the law because it forces Arizona companies to "play under a different set of rules" regarding employment and that sanctions for employing illegal immigrants should be applied at the federal level so that they are uniform across the country.

National significance

Arizona's law punishes companies by suspending or revoking their business licenses for knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. The law also requires Arizona employers to use a federal electronic system, called E-Verify, that validates the Social Security numbers and immigration status of new hires.

Opponents contend the law is unconstitutional because no lawmaking body other than Congress can establish employment standards and mandate punishment in relation to immigration issues. They also say a state cannot require businesses to enroll and participate in E-Verify.

The state, however, has successfully convinced lower courts that the Legal Arizona Workers Act relies on an exemption in the 1986 federal Immigration Reform and Control Act allowing local and state governments to take civil action when it comes to licensing businesses.

The courts also have ruled there is nothing in federal law that prohibits a state from mandating that employers use E-Verify.

"We obviously feel good about our position. So far, every judge who has looked at this has accepted our arguments," said Arizona Solicitor General Mary O'Grady, who has defended the law and will argue before the Supreme Court.

Paul Bender, an Arizona State University professor who specializes in constitutional law, said if the Supreme Court upholds the lower courts' rulings, then other states will "take advantage of the licensing exception" to pass similar employer-sanctions laws.

"It's potentially significant nationwide if they uphold this program," said Bender.

Little enforcement

While the employer-sanctions law is receiving national attention, it has punished two Arizona companies since it went into effect Jan. 1, 2008. A third company, Scottsdale Art Factory, has its case pending in Maricopa County Superior Court.

The two other cases involve Danny's Subway, a Phoenix sandwich shop that was forced to close for two days in 2010 for violating the law, and Waterworld. The water park, formerly in northeast Phoenix, had its business license suspended for 10 days for violating the law. The punishment for Waterworld was symbolic because the company was out of business when the penalty was announced in December 2009.

Except in Maricopa County, the law has had a minimal effect. Many county prosecutors have not spent state funds to enforce the law because there are so few complaints.

Yet in the state's most populous county, Arpaio has used the law to conduct 40 investigations into businesses suspected of employing illegal immigrants.

The first investigation came one month after the law took effect. The latest was Nov. 15, at Nunez Creative Landscaping in El Mirage. In all, there were 452 arrests, 308 of those for identity theft and forgery. Meanwhile, 131 individuals who were suspected of being in the country illegally were turned over to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Arpaio said he believes the employer-sanctions law has been effective in getting illegal immigrants to leave Arizona.

"If you look at what we are doing, we are the only ones doing it," Arpaio said.

Arpaio said law enforcement is hampered in filing civil lawsuits against businesses who hire illegal immigrants because the sanctions law does not give prosecutors subpoena power to obtain records. The business community was successful during the 2010 legislative session in keeping that power from prosecutors.

Regardless of the Supreme Court's ruling, Arpaio said he still plans to continue workplace raids.

"The Supreme Court will not change the way I do business," he said.

Unique case

The employer-sanctions hearing comes just more than a month after the Supreme Court heard a legal challenge to Arizona's private-school tax-credit program and whether it violates the separation of church and state.

The high court also agreed last week to hear arguments next spring on the constitutionality of a key component of Arizona's public campaign-finance system. And, arguments over SB 1070 are expected to reach the high court.

Bender, who argued the case against the tax-credit program before the Supreme Court, said it is extremely rare for one state to have a handful of cases before the Supreme Court in such a short time.

"Arizona is beginning to play a large role in constitutional law in this country," Bender said.

The employer-sanctions case also has a unique twist in that Justice Elena Kagan is recused from the case because of a possible conflict of interest.

The former U.S. solicitor general will not vote because her former office in May asked the high court to consider a challenge to the law.

That leaves eight justices to hear the case. If it results in a 4-4 tie among the remaining justices, the lower-court rulings will stand and the employer-sanctions law will remain in effect.

http://www.azdailysun.com/news/local/state-and-regional/article_71ec37ff-5d78-5ce9-94f1-fd5265e12bd2.html

Supreme Court to hear employer sanctions case

HOWARD FISCHER Capitol Media Services azdailysun.com | Posted: Saturday, December 4, 2010 5:00 am

The nation's highest court will consider this coming Wednesday whether Arizona can legally punish companies found guilty of knowingly hiring undocumented workers.

Justices will hear arguments by a coalition of civil rights and business groups who contend the 2007 law infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration.

A federal judge in Phoenix did not see it that way. And his ruling was upheld more than a year ago by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

But what's different now is that the Obama administration has added its voice to the debate. Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, in legal papers filed with the high court, argued the Arizona law specifically runs afoul of a federal law that bars states from imposing any sort of penalties on those who employ people not in the country legally.

Hanging in the balance is what is formally known as the Legal Arizona Worker Act. It was approved by the Republican Legislature and signed by Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano over the objections of business interests.

In fact, Napolitano, now the Homeland Security secretary in the Obama administration that is trying to kill the law, said at the time she approved it "because it is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs."

Napolitano, through an aide, declined to comment on the current fight.

But a ruling striking down the law could have even broader effects: If the justices conclude that federal immigration laws totally preempt any state rules, that likely would be the death knell for SB1070, the controversial Arizona law approved earlier this year to give police more power to detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants.

The law is billed by supporters as Arizona's attempt to dry up the supply of jobs as a way of deterring illegal immigration.

But the Immigration Reform and Control Act, approved by Congress in 1986, precludes states and cities from imposing any civil or criminal penalties on companies for hiring illegal immigrants. The same law, however, allows states to have their own "licensing or similar laws."

Sen. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he crafted the law to fit that exception by making the suspension or revocation of a state license the sole penalty for hiring undocumented workers. The rulings of the trial and appellate courts would appear to back his contention.

But attorney Julie Pace, who is representing the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said the judges got it only half right.

She conceded that states can take away business licenses.

Pace argued, though, that can happen only after a firm is found guilty by a federal court or similar federal process of knowingly hiring illegal immigrants. She said state judges lack legal authority to make that decision.

Katyal, in his own arguments to the Supreme Court, agreed that the procedures under the Arizona law to determine guilt or innocence of a business owner run afoul of federal regulations.

He said there are procedures that cover cases where federal officials accuse employers of hiring undocumented workers, including the ability to appeal. That, he said, is not the case in Arizona.

"Proceedings (under the Arizona law) occur before local judges, with no possibility of federal district court review," Katyal said. And he said Arizona law, unlike its federal counterpart, has no provision banning discrimination.

Pearce, who will be attending the court hearing, disagreed.

He said the law has safeguards for companies, starting with the requirement that prosecutors prove that an employer knowingly broke the law in order to obtain a conviction. He said that protects them against prosecution for innocent mistakes.

And Pearce said the law also gives a "rebuttable presumption" of innocence to any firm that used the federal government's online E-Verify system to check whether new employees are legally entitled to work in this country.

Gov. Jan Brewer, who also will be in Washington for the hearing, said that, for her, the issue is simpler.

"I think we have a responsibility given that our borders aren't secure," she said. The governor said the state needs "to do whatever is necessary" to curb illegal immigration.

Brewer said the question of preemption would be an issue only if the federal government were doing its job.

"In lieu of that, Arizona's stepping up and trying to do the best job that we can given the tools that we are enabled with by the decision of the Legislature," she said.

A separate part of the legal challenge deals with that E-Verify program itself.

The law specifically requires companies to use the federal database with all new workers. Lower courts rejected arguments by foes of the legislation that such a mandate is illegal.

The newest Supreme Court justice, Elena Kagan, will not participate in this hearing because the Department of Justice filed its objections to the Arizona law while she was still solicitor general.

A ruling is not likely until spring.