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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT