Posted on 11/01/2006 7:52:19 AM PST by BradtotheBone
A federal judge on Tuesday blocked the city of Hazleton from enforcing a pair of ordinances targeting illegal immigrants, just hours before the measures were to go into effect. The measures, approved by City Council last month, would have imposed fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and denied business permits to companies that give them jobs. They also would have required tenants to register with City Hall and pay for a rental permit.
U.S. District Judge James Munley ruled that landlords, tenants and businesses that cater to Hispanics faced "irreparable harm" from the laws and issued a temporary restraining order blocking their enforcement.
"We find it in the public interest to protect residents' access to homes, education, jobs and businesses," he wrote in a 13-page opinion.
Hispanic groups and the ACLU sued Hazleton on Monday, contending that the laws trample on the federal government's exclusive power to regulate immigration.
The plaintiffs include the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association, landlords, a restaurateur and several illegal immigrants facing eviction, including children who attend public schools.
Mayor Lou Barletta, who spearheaded the crackdown, has argued that illegal immigrants have brought an increase in drugs, crime and gangs to the city. The city's lawyers on Tuesday cited a 10 percent increase in crime between 2004 and 2005 as a reason why the ordinances should be enforced.
Munley, however, wrote that the city "offers only vague generalizations about the crime allegedly caused by illegal immigrants, but has nothing concrete to back up these claims." The city also failed to provide statistics on the number of illegal immigrants living in Hazleton, he wrote.
Furthermore, Munley wrote, the plaintiffs have a "reasonable probability" of getting the laws declared unconstitutional.
Hazleton's crackdown, which was announced in June, has spurred other towns to pass similar laws. Municipal officials view the Hazleton lawsuit and a similar one in Riverside, N.J., as test cases.
Witold J. Walczak, legal director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania, hailed Tuesday's decision as an important victory.
"I think what's important is the judge recognized that this ordinance has the potential to cause real harm by costing people their jobs, their houses and requiring children to leave schools," he said.
The judge's restraining order expires Nov. 14. He indicated that he will schedule a hearing on the ACLU's motion for a temporary injunction.
Barletta said he is convinced the courts will ultimately uphold the law. He noted his lawyers had only a few hours to prepare for Tuesday's hearing and said he is confident they will "prove our right to defend and protect our citizens."
"I'm not discouraged. They may have delayed enforcement for now, but this too shall pass," Barletta said Tuesday. "We have only begun to fight."
We still have 4 vacancies in the third circuit, the court to which this ruling will be appealed to.
"This thing needs fast tracking to the UNSC."
You'll have to wait another 10 or 20 years before the UN Security Council administers municipal matters in small Pa. towns.
Just another bought and paid for rotten political judge
City hired enforcement officers are subjects of the cities and towns that employ them, not of asinine judges who rule in contempt of the people.
It's a federal judge so he'd probably have the U.S. Marshalls, or some other federal agency, enforce his ruling.
That just about says it all.
Well, Duh!
Well in this case, if the illegals were not over running the town, the judge would not have been involved.
Short answer Jimmy Carter. He asked for and recieved a ruling on the schools in Texas.
Short answer Jimmy Carter. He asked for and recieved a ruling on the schools in Texas.
I believe you would have to ask the President, since has the responsibility to enforce all laws and treaty's.
Judicial activism and arrogance, out of control.
U.S. District Judge James Munley = Enemy
Your tag line is great! It says it all. Why is it the GOP leaders seem as though not to understand your tag line at all?
Can't someone nail his hide to the wall for aiding and abetting?
Wheres the charges against the people renting and giving jobs to illegal immigrants?
Oh no, no, no...you misapprehend the situation....that would make far too much sense.
You see, he's a FEDERAL JUDGE...and pursuant to Article III of the Constitution.....appointed for life or "during good behavior." I guess one could argue that this miscreant has lost his friggin' mind....such that he should be relieved of his duties and forced to exchange his black robe for a white coat with extra-long arms that tie in the back. Now that's an argument I could and would willingly make......but something tells me I'd be the one in the white coat in short order.
God help this country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.