ILNews

9th Circuit upholds Arizona immigration law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana lawmakers who want to pass legislation targeting employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants got ammunition from a federal appellate court ruling in California.

In a 26-page unanimous ruling Wednesday in Chicanos Por La Causa Inc., et al. v. Janet Napolitano, et al., No. 07-17272, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco affirmed a lower court's ruling rejecting a facial challenge to Arizona's law allowing the state to use licensing laws to enforce immigration-related policies.

The three-judge panel held that state governments can properly enact sanctions that could take away licenses of employers who hire illegal workers and that the statute gives employers an adequate opportunity to defend themselves in a court hearing.

Although it upheld the law, the court pointed out that no businesses have been prosecuted in the nearly nine months since the law's been in effect, and that means future challenges may not be controlled by the decision depending on the facts of those cases.

This ruling gives a boost to Indiana lawmakers, who used that Arizona law as a model in crafting their own legislation during the 2008 session. That bill failed to gain enough support, but Sen. Mike Delph, R-Carmel, hopes to introduce similar legislation during the 2009 session, and he praised the 9th Circuit ruling.

In preparation of the new legislative session, the Interim Study Committee on Immigration Issues is currently studying those issues and has brought law professors and legal experts to testify about the differences between state and federal immigration laws. At its first meeting Sept. 9, experts indicated there was no guarantee a state law would stand up in federal court - something that may now be more debatable following the 9th Circuit's decision.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT