Hazleton Ordinance Upheld, Federal Appellate Court Rules

[Jeanfromfillmore]

Hazleton Ordinance Upheld, Federal Appellate Court Rules
A federal appeals court has vacated a mandate that found a controversial immigration ordinance in Hazleton, Penn., unconstitutional.
The Standard-Speaker of Hazleton reports the development comes after the U.S. Supreme Court in June ordered the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to take another look at the case. Court documents show the order was issued Friday.
Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi tells the newspaper the development is "good news" that puts the controversial immigration law back in the hands of the federal appeals court.
The court's initial decision prevented the city of Hazleton, in northern Pennsylvania, from enforcing regulations that would deny permits to business that hire undocumented immigrants and fine landlords who rent to them. Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act inspired similar laws around the country.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/pol...#ixzz1TzrXa4rP
Ruling over Pa. town's immigration law vacated
PHILADELPHIA -- A federal appeals court has vacated its ruling that declared a northeastern Pennsylvania city's illegal immigration law to be unconstitutional, setting the stage for a new round of arguments.
The move by the Philadelphia-based 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals last Friday was expected after the U.S. Supreme Court ordered it to take another look at Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act.
The appeals court had blocked Hazleton from enforcing regulations that would deny permits to business that hire illegal immigrants and fine landlords who rent to them, saying they usurped the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
The Supreme Court threw out the appeals court ruling in June after the justices upheld a similar employer-sanctions law in Arizona.
Officials in Hazleton have argued that illegal immigrants brought drugs, crime and gangs to the city of about 25,000, overwhelming police, schools and hospitals. The city's 2006 Illegal Immigration Relief Act inspired similar laws around the country, including the one in Arizona.
A companion measure would require prospective tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
The laws have never been enforced. Hispanic groups and illegal immigrants sued to overturn the measures, and a federal judge struck them down following a trial in 2007.
Friday's order from the 3rd Circuit does not mean that Hazleton can begin implementing the laws. The district court's ruling remains in force.


Appeals court vacates ruling that Hazleton's illegal immigrant ordinance is unconstitutional
The U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a mandate that declares Hazleton's immigration ordinance unconstitutional, the city's mayor confirmed Tuesday.
The development comes after the U.S. Supreme Court in June ordered the federal appeals court in Philadelphia to take another look at Hazleton's case.
Hazleton Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi called the development "good news" for the city and puts its controversial immigration law back in the hands of the Third Circuit court.
"The initial decision was in favor of the plaintiff - they said it was unconstitutional," Yannuzzi said of the original appeals court ruling last year. "Now they had to vacate that decision and review it again. What it means is that it's going to be some other decision than what it was."
Attorney Kris Kobach, who wrote the law, said the development amounts to the Third Circuit court formally vacating, or erasing, its prior decision.
With the Third Circuit ruling "gone," Kobach said the American Civil Liberties Union and Mexican American Legal Defense & Education Fund will not be able to cite the Third Circuit ruling in Hazleton's case while opposing similar illegal immigration laws that have surfaced in other parts of the country.
"It's not only a victory for Hazleton but a victory for cities in other parts of the country," said Kobach, who now serves as Kansas' secretary of state.
Officials at ACLU's Northeast Pennsylvania Chapter did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.
The city subsequently faces three different scenarios regarding its never-enforced ordinance - the U.S. Third Circuit Court issuing another ruling based on information it currently has, the court requesting briefs or requesting oral arguments, Yannuzzi said.
Kobach believes the most likely scenario will be having attorneys on both sides of the immigration debate rewrite legal briefs, given the new Supreme Court precedent. Kobach said he could not speculate on when those developments could unfold.
The city petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court last December for a hearing on its ordinance, which was struck down by lower courts on two occasions. The ordinance was intended to discourage employers from hiring, and landlords from harboring, illegal immigrants.
The petition cited discrepancies in lower court rulings over whether states and municipalities can take limited steps in assisting the federal government in enforcing immigration law.
"The Supreme Court made a decision in Arizona," Yannuzzi said. "They had a Ninth Circuit Court decision that said the case out there was constitutional. Ours is similar to that case but here, it's unconstitutional. The Supreme Court took the decision from the Third Circuit Court and sent it back to say, 'Take another look.' "
Court documents state that the order vacating the lower court mandate was issued Friday.
The city will continue relying on donations to fund its ongoing immigration battle, Yannuzzi said. Officials created a website called SmallTownDefenders.com in June 2006 to collect money from around the country. The city collected about $430,000 through the website since its creation. As of last October, the city reported a balance of around $10,000 after accounting for legal fees and other expenses regarding its ongoing legal battle.
http://republicanherald.com/news/app...onal-1.1183628