Posted on 07/26/2007 2:33:17 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
A federal judge has struck down the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, ruling Hazleton's proposed crackdown on landlords and employers doing business with illegal immigrants is unconstitutional.
In a 206-page opinion, U.S. District Judge James M. Munley stated, "Federal law prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinance" aimed at expelling illegal immigrants.
"Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme," Munley wrote.
The ruling comes about four months after a nine-day trial concluded in Scranton federal court and a little more than a year since city council passed the ordinance punishing businesses that hire and landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. A separate provision making English the official language was written into a different ordinance and dropped from the lawsuit.
(Excerpt) Read more at citizensvoice.com ...
There are other instances where state and Federal laws overlap. I see no reason for this to be an exception.
“carefully drawn federal statutory scheme”
Made me laugh.
If that's the case why do liberal city councils self-designate as "sanctuary cities" (SF) and others (Philly) want to right their own gun bans in contravention of the federal & state constitutions? Can't have this both ways.
Yep... That’s the one that struck me too.
What’s the background on the judge?
right = write
...long day...
he was appointed by Clinton.
Were all judges appointed by Clinton liberal and politically correct?
This faulty ruling will not stand in appellate.
Were all judges appointed by Clinton liberal and politically correct?
......Yes!!!!
a judge strikes down a town law that enforces a federal law....says a lot about the judiciary!!!!!
at the rate this nation is spiriling downward....it is a wonder that it is still intact!!!!
How do you think that the Fed will enforce this ruling?
regardless of who is appointing these guys, at the end of the day, both parties dont want to do anything about immigration other than open up the borders.
So, then, this strikes down all the laws that cities have to help get rid of drug dealers, since it also falls under enforcing a federal regulation, right? How can it be an infringement on federal purview if all it is is a law that says ‘you’re not permitted to deal with those who are committing a crime’?
Strange.
So local cops have no jurisdiction when a Federal bank is robed, just wait for the FBI?
* 1958-1960 U.S. Army
* 1963-1964 Law Clerk to the Honorable Michael J. Eagen, Chief Justice, Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
* 1964-1978 Partner, Munley & Munley
* 1978-1998 Judge, Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania
SELECTED PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
* Member, Pennsylvania Bar Association
* Former Chairman, PA Judicial Inquiry and Review Board
* Former President, Executive Board, Forest Lakes Council, Boy Scouts of America
* Board of Directors, Lawyers Concerned for Lawyers
* Lackawanna Bar Association’s Young Intern Committee
* Former Member, Pennsylvania Board of Law Examiners
EDUCATION
* B.S., 1958, University of Scranton
* LL.B., 1963, Temple School of Law
Appointed by President William J. Clinton.
Excerpts of U.S. judge’s ruling on city’s crackdown on illegals
By The Associated Press
Excerpts of a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Munley striking down as unconstitutional ordinances in Hazleton, Pa., that sought to impose fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and deny business permits to companies that give them jobs.
—
The United States Congress has provided complete and thorough regulations with regard to the employment of unauthorized aliens including anti-immigration discrimination provisions. Allowing States or local governments to legislate with regard to the employment of unauthorized alines would interfere with Congressional objectives.
—
Defendant seems to argue that the law is constitutional because it is aimed at illegal aliens who have no right to be in the United States. Defendant’s position fails to acknowledge that the law will affect more than illegal aliens. It will affect every employer, every employee who is challenged as an illegal alien and every prospective employee especially those who look or act as if they are foreign.
—
Hazleton’s ordinances burden aliens more than federal law by prohibiting them from residing in the city although they may be permitted to remain in the United States. The ordinances are thus in conflict with federal law and pre-empted.
—
An ordinance which would cause people to lose their residences but provides them no notice before eviction certainly does not meet the requirements of due process.
—
We are left to conclude that the ordinances are too vague for us to determine on their face exactly what documents renters, employers and landlords must submit in order to comply.
—
FROM THE JUDGE’S CONCLUSION:
Whatever frustrations officials of the City of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the City from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme. Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton’s measures, the City could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not.
The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws.
Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced.
"Some animals are more equal than others." - George Orwell, Animal Farm
Thanks..will Hazelton appeal?
Exactly , good point. Many liberal places have designated themselves sanctuary cities, and instructed local law enforcement not to deal with immigration status. That is in violation of federal law, isn’t it?
That’s what I’ve read in here....they will appeal.
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.