ILNews

New suit filed protesting immigration law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund has filed a lawsuit on behalf of La Union Benefica Mexicana, a nonprofit organization in East Chicago, protesting two previously unchallenged portions of Indiana’s new immigration law.

In June 2011, U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker blocked two other provisions of Public Law 171 – which originated as Senate Bill 590.

The MALDEF complaint, filed Dec. 20, claims that La Union Benefica Mexicana has had to divert resources to educating people about the possible implications of Public Law 171, specifically Indiana Code 22-4-39.5 and 22-5-6. Both concern the verification of a person’s eligibility to work in the United States. Indiana Code 22-5-6-4 states that anyone who enforces employment law and has probable cause to believe that a person has violated requirements for day labor shall file a complaint with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Thomas A. Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel, said in a statement: “Our Constitution permits only one government – the federal government – to regulate immigration, and the federal government has enacted comprehensive laws regulating the employment of immigrants. By seeking to independently punish workers and employers, SB 590 runs afoul of that basic constitutional principle.”

In May 2011, the National Immigration Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana and the national ACLU Foundation Immigrants’ Rights Project filed a class-action lawsuit challenging portions of the law that would allow police to conduct warrantless arrests and would penalize immigrants for using their consular identification cards.

That complaint resulted in Barker’s declaration that those two portions of the law were unenforceable. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller filed a motion Dec. 21 asking the court to temporarily halt proceedings in Buquer, et al. v. City of Indianapolis, et al., No. 1:2011-CV-00708, the class-action complaint filed last May. Zoeller made the request because the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear a challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, and the resulting opinion will clarify what states’ roles are in enforcing immigration laws, Zoeller said in a statement.•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • diverting resources?
    I dont understand that harm that supposedly makes this entity a legit challenger. They have to "divert resources?" how about all the resources that are diverted by illegal immigration.

    Also I do not think that is any kind of accurate statement of the law. From day one of government class we learned that state governments had plenary powers and the federal one limited. Enforcement of immigration status has always been legitimately done by states as well as federal. They immigration advocates are trying to change the law on this by repeating themselves loudly and often.

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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT