Immigration

Challenge to DHS's No-Match Regulation
AFL-CIO, United States Chamber of Commerce, et al. v. Chertoff
No. 3:07-cv-04472-CRB
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

The district court agreed with NCLC and enjoined DHS from issuing letters pursuant to its No-Match regulation.  In its complaint as intervenor on behalf of the Chamber and others, NCLC argued that the regulation imposed new, onerous procedures that employers must follow if they receive letters from the Social Security Administration (SSA) that social security numbers used by their workers do not match records in the SSA database.  NCLC also argued that DHS failed to complete an economic impact assessment as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act when it concluded the new regulation would impose no new or additional costs on employers.  The district court agreed with both arguments and recognized the irreparable harm that businesses and innocent employees would suffer if the no-match rule went into effect.

AFL-CIO's Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief filed 8/28/07.  Order Granting Temporary Restraining Order 8/31/07. Chamber's Complaint in Intervention filed 9/7/07.  Chamber's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction filed 9/11/07.  UFCW's Complaint in Intervention filed 9/12/07.  Government's Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 9/18/07.  NFIB's amicus Brief Supporting Intervenors filed 9/18/07. Reply to Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motions for Preliminary Injunction filed 9/25/07.  Preliminary Injunction hearing held 10/1/07.  Order granting Preliminary Injunction 10/10/07. Chamber's Amended Complaint filed 10/19/07.

View brief          Points & Authorities

Federal Preemption of Arizona Immigration Statute
Arizona Contractors Association, et al. v.  Napolitano
No. CV 07-1355-PHX-NVW
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

The District Court dismissed without prejudice the Chamber and other Arizona businesses’ lawsuit challenging Arizona’s immigration law.  The judge did not uphold the constitutionality of the law.  While the judge ruled that the mandatory E-Verify provisions of Arizona’s immigration law were likely unconstitutional, the judge believed that the parties sued the wrong defendants.  The judge believed that the proper defendants to the suit were the fifteen county attorneys charged with enforcing the law, instead of the Governor and Attorney General.  The parties will refile the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law because it interferes with federal law regulating the employment of undocumented workers. 

First Amended Complaint filed 8/8/07.  Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 8/31/07.  Chicanos Por La Causa and Somos America’s Complaint and Motion to Consolidate filed 9/4/07.  Government’s Motion to Dismiss filed 9/10/07. Human Resource Initiative for a Legal Workforce’s amicus brief filed 9/14/07.  Scheduling Conference held 9/14/07.  Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief Regarding Issues not Raised in Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed 9/25/07.  Government’s Motion to Dismiss Chicanos Por La Causa & Somos American Complaint filed 9/26/07. Chamber’s Reply to Government’s Opposition filed 10/3/07. National Federation of Independent Business amicus brief filed 10/5/07. Chicanos Por La Causa & Somos American’s Reply to Government’s Opposition filed 10/9/07.  Government’s Response to Chamber’s Reply to Motion to Dismiss filed 10/16/07.  Chamber’s Reply in Support of Preliminary Injunction filed 10/19/07.  Joint Statement of Stipulated Facts filed 11/2/07. Court Order Requesting Supplemental Briefing dated 11/5/07.  Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority filed 11/8/07.  Plaintiffs’ Supplemental Brief filed 11/13/07. Defendants’ Supplemental Brief Regarding Fourth Amendment Issues filed 11/13/07.  Plaintiffs’ Response to Defendants’ Notice of Supplemental Authority filed 11/13/07. Preliminary Injunction hearing held 11/14/07.   Decision 12/7/07. Plaintiff’s Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal filed 12/13/07.  Chicanos por La  Causa Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal filed 12/13/07.  Plaintiff’s  Notice of Appeal filed 12/13/07.  Order Denying Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal dated 12/21/07.

View brief

Federal Preemption of Local Immigration Ordinance
Lozano v. City of Hazleton
No. 3:06-cv-1586
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania

A Pennsylvania district court agreed with NCLC and struck down as unconstitutional a Hazleton, Pennsylvania ordinance designed to regulate the employment of illegal immigrants.  In its brief, NCLC argued that Hazleton's ordinance is unconstitutional because it ignores employers' due process rights and is preempted by federal law -- the Immigration Reform and Control Act -- which provides a comprehensive plan prohibiting the employment of foreign-born workers in the United States. The Hazelton ordinance deviated from the federal uniform framework by punishing employers for unknowingly hiring illegal immigrants, rewriting federal work authorization verification rules, and conflicting with federal antidiscrimination statutes. 

Amicus brief filed 3/5/07.  Trial held 3/12/07.  Post-trial motions filed 5/14/07.  Decision 7/26/07.

View brief