Post by unlawflcombatnt on Dec 14, 2010 11:56:07 GMT -6
from FAIR.org
Supreme Court Reviews Arizona’s E-Verify Law.
"Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to strike down Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law. The statute (H.B. 2779) was signed into law by the former Governor of Arizona and current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, in 2007. H.B. 2779 requires that all state employers (public and private) confirm that employees are work-authorized through the federal E-Verify system. The law authorizes the state to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers determined to have “knowingly” or “intentionally” hired illegal aliens. Mirroring federal law, H.B. 2779 also contains a rebuttable presumption that employers who utilize E-Verify have not intentionally hired illegal aliens.
The Chamber of Commerce, which has consistently opposed E-Verify measures and supported mass guest worker programs, sued the State of Arizona to strike the law shortly after it was enacted in 2007. In Whiting, the Chamber and other open borders groups contend that Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, and the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The Chamber has primarily argued that because Congress implemented the E-Verify system as a voluntary pilot program, Arizona is preempted from making it mandatory.
However, the defendants—city attorneys in Arizona responsible for enforcing the law—have countered that when Congress implemented E-Verify, it only precluded the Secretary of Homeland Security (not the states) from making its use mandatory. Defense Counsel Mary O’Grady argued, “s long as it’s not a burden to the objectives of Congress, we think that we can require employers within our jurisdiction to use E-Verify.” (Transcript of Oral Argument pp. 37:12) “We don’t impose a penalty against employers who fail to use it. The consequences are the same as they are under federal law,” she said. (Id. at pp. 37:19)
The Chamber also argues that the provision in H.B. 2779 that permits Arizona to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who knowingly and intentionally hire illegal aliens violates a federal statute on the employment of illegal aliens. That statute, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, provides that federal law regarding the employment of illegal aliens “pre-empt[s any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … unauthorized aliens.” (8. U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2); Pl.’s SAC ¶ 141) Chamber attorney Carter Phillips argued, “t seems to me quite remarkable to think that Congress intended through a parenthetical referring to ‘through licensing laws’ to allow the State to adopt an entire alternative shadow enforcement mechanism . . .” (Transcript of Oral Argument pp. 7:16) However, the defendants argued that H.B. 2779 was not an alternative enforcement mechanism, but rather a permissible licensing scheme. Defense Counsel O’Grady explained, “States traditionally have the authority to regulate the conduct of employers within their jurisdiction to determine what conduct warrants issuance of a State license and to determine what conduct justifies suspending or revoking such a license.”....
Arizona’s E-Verify law is unique in the nation because it requires both public employers (i.e. state agencies) and private employers to use the system in an effort to discourage illegal immigration. Since the Chamber first challenged the law, both the U.S. District Court in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld it. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision sometime this spring."
Supreme Court Reviews Arizona’s E-Verify Law.
"Last week the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chamber of Commerce of the U.S. v. Whiting, a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in an attempt to strike down Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify law. The statute (H.B. 2779) was signed into law by the former Governor of Arizona and current Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, in 2007. H.B. 2779 requires that all state employers (public and private) confirm that employees are work-authorized through the federal E-Verify system. The law authorizes the state to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers determined to have “knowingly” or “intentionally” hired illegal aliens. Mirroring federal law, H.B. 2779 also contains a rebuttable presumption that employers who utilize E-Verify have not intentionally hired illegal aliens.
The Chamber of Commerce, which has consistently opposed E-Verify measures and supported mass guest worker programs, sued the State of Arizona to strike the law shortly after it was enacted in 2007. In Whiting, the Chamber and other open borders groups contend that Arizona’s mandatory E-Verify statute is unconstitutional because it violates the Due Process Clause of both the U.S. and Arizona Constitutions, and the Commerce and Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. The Chamber has primarily argued that because Congress implemented the E-Verify system as a voluntary pilot program, Arizona is preempted from making it mandatory.
However, the defendants—city attorneys in Arizona responsible for enforcing the law—have countered that when Congress implemented E-Verify, it only precluded the Secretary of Homeland Security (not the states) from making its use mandatory. Defense Counsel Mary O’Grady argued, “s long as it’s not a burden to the objectives of Congress, we think that we can require employers within our jurisdiction to use E-Verify.” (Transcript of Oral Argument pp. 37:12) “We don’t impose a penalty against employers who fail to use it. The consequences are the same as they are under federal law,” she said. (Id. at pp. 37:19)
The Chamber also argues that the provision in H.B. 2779 that permits Arizona to suspend or revoke the business licenses of employers who knowingly and intentionally hire illegal aliens violates a federal statute on the employment of illegal aliens. That statute, 8 U.S.C. 1324a, provides that federal law regarding the employment of illegal aliens “pre-empt[s any state or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ … unauthorized aliens.” (8. U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2); Pl.’s SAC ¶ 141) Chamber attorney Carter Phillips argued, “t seems to me quite remarkable to think that Congress intended through a parenthetical referring to ‘through licensing laws’ to allow the State to adopt an entire alternative shadow enforcement mechanism . . .” (Transcript of Oral Argument pp. 7:16) However, the defendants argued that H.B. 2779 was not an alternative enforcement mechanism, but rather a permissible licensing scheme. Defense Counsel O’Grady explained, “States traditionally have the authority to regulate the conduct of employers within their jurisdiction to determine what conduct warrants issuance of a State license and to determine what conduct justifies suspending or revoking such a license.”....
Arizona’s E-Verify law is unique in the nation because it requires both public employers (i.e. state agencies) and private employers to use the system in an effort to discourage illegal immigration. Since the Chamber first challenged the law, both the U.S. District Court in Arizona and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have upheld it. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to issue its decision sometime this spring."