Posted on 05/29/2008 6:41:46 PM PDT by I_Publius
AP
Texas town's immigrant-renting rule is struck down
Thursday May 29, 8:38 am ET
By Anabelle Garay, Associated Press Writer
Only the federal government can regulate immigration, U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay concluded in his decision.
The city didn't defer to the federal government on the matter, violating the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, which allows for the federal government to pre-empt local laws, Lindsay said.
Bill Brewer, who represented apartment complex operators who opposed the rule, declared victory.
"It's a good day, not just for my clients," Brewer said. "It's a good day for people who are thinking clearly about what is the proper role of municipal governments in the immigration debate."
Representatives for the city said they had anticipated the outcome. The city has no plans to appeal the ruling because it has already stopped pursuing the ordinance and replaced it with another tactic.
"We're disappointed but not particularly surprised," Michael Jung, one of the city's attorneys, said.
The Farmers Branch council passed the ordinance last year. It would have barred apartment rentals to illegal immigrants and required landlords to verify legal status. The rule would have exempted minors and senior citizens from having to prove their immigration status or citizenship.
Families made up of both citizens and undocumented members would have been allowed to renew an apartment lease if they met three conditions: they were already tenants, the head of household or spouse was living legally in the United States, and the family included only the spouse, their minor children or parents.
Residents heavily endorsed the rule a year ago in the nation's first public vote on a local measure to combat illegal immigration.
A group of apartment complex operators, residents and advocates sued Farmers Branch. They alleged the rule was so poorly drafted that it could allow exclusion of legal immigrants and citizens from renting, was difficult to abide by because it didn't provide clear guidance for apartment managers and owners, and improperly tried to turn property managers into policing agents.
Lindsay then blocked Farmers Branch from enforcing the ordinance, a temporary injunction now made permanent by his decision Wednesday.
The rule failed to provide clear guidance that immigration documents were acceptable for proof and didn't explain what was meant by "eligible immigration status," the judge wrote.
The city's attempts to salvage the ordinance faltered because they would have required the court to draft laws, he said. That function is outside the court's duties.
Farmers Branch has given up requiring landlords to verify immigration status and instead plans to implement a rule that would require prospective tenants to get a rental license from the city, which would then ask the federal government for the applicant's legal status before approving it.
Around the country, about 100 cities or counties have now considered, passed or rejected similar laws, but Farmers Branch was the first in immigrant-heavy Texas, according to the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, which tracks the data.
Bickel and Brewer Lawfirm http://www.bickelbrewer.com/95.html
Bill Brewer, Esquire - metioned in article Contact: wab@bickelbrewer.com
When the 2nd American Revolution comes, the black-robed Federal tyrants will be the first to face justice.
And there's the catch-22: Only the federal government can regulate immigration, and they have no intention of doing it, so everybody better STFU, learn Spanish, and get with the New World Order agenda. Between this insanity, and failure to permit increased energy supplies, and the obscene spending, it's just about time for torches and pitchforks at the DC Mall.
AP continues to get the story wrong. The ordinance passed by the Council was thrown out. The ordinance voted on by the public has not yet taken effect, and the court refused to decide whether it’s constitutional until it’s effective and someone sues.
Is this the supremacy clause (VI. 2)?
I thought the headline meant “renting immigrants” like, for a day - use them and return them to Mexico.
LOL
I'm confused on two points.
1. It looks to me like the city's primary role was in regulating real estate rentals, which is a traditional role of local government. I wonder if this precedent will apply to other cities that are discussing regulating CO2 emissions (will these cities limit how long athletic teams can practice based on CO2 exhaled, or can teams get around the rules if they buy carbon credits and pay other residents for couch potato services? ), since under this reasoning such regulations would be unconstitutional because the EPA is responsible for air quality ... nevermind ... regulating CO2 is liberal intervention, so it's okay with this sort of judge.
2. When has an activist judge ever shied away from creatively drafting laws from the bench? Oh, right. Making the law on rentals work would have the effect of promoting the conservative position that immigration law should be followed, not an outcome favored by liberal judges.
Pathetic. Liberal or conservative, judges should enforce the laws as written, subject to the restriction that the laws must comply with a strict reading of the federal constitution and where appropriate the state constitution.
>> “Texas town’s immigrant-renting rule is struck down” <<
That’s funny... all over Texas, you can rent a slave for about $1.20 an hour.
A little honesty, Senors Bush, McCain and Mahony: that’s what we’re talking about with H-2B visas: rent-a-slaves.
No, the supremacy law works the other way. Allow me to translate:
The Constitution, federal laws (made according to the Constitution), and treaties (made under the authority of the United States) are the Supreme Law of the land. Judges within the states must respect that fact, regardless of whatever the laws of their own states say.
How curious. I asked myself, "Gosh, aren't there some instances where an action violates both a state or local and a Federal law? If Mr. Judge's ruling is accurate, then this should not be possible. And all these lower-jurisdiction laws should be struck down. Right?
So I looked around for 15 seconds and found this:
"Often a particular criminal behavior will violate both a state and a federal law; the most frequently charged crimes that fall under both jurisdictions involve controlled substance violations (drug crimes) and drug conspiracy."
I get it. Laws a District judge doesn't like violate the Supremacy Clause. Maybe he thinks it's a judicial supremacy clause.
Given the entrenchment of the liberal establishment, it will more likely be a civil war. There is a need for further realignment and simple strategizing. I'm the nut that keeps asking to find out who/where I can help out in the effort, because the slow bleed is agonizing. I'm also the nut who plans to vote for B.O. as I hope to accelerate the process. By my thinkin' we're long overdue for a "conversation" on race (and other certain topics). I can think of several different categories of organization for the war effort i.e. deprogramming savable libtards, database maintenence of rejects, on and on. Of course, since the Lord loves Truth and Faith, our side will win.
Spiritually, I work on my heart so that the process will be a reluctant, tough-love, duty, rather than a fervent joy i.e. I know I should be a Disciple rather than a Zealot.
So by the same logic, neither a state or a local cop has any legal authority to make a drug arrest?
Cool.
P.S. Where do they find these idiots?
Well I got my torch *and* a pitchfork.
We the people need to start exercising our second amendment rights and learning lessons from our forefathers when they wrote the Declaration of Independance.
This Government no longer works to secure our freedoms and provide for our defense.
So, you changed the title because you knew this very same article had been posted yesterday?
Under it’s real title.
So, you changed the title because you knew this very same article had been posted yesterday?
Under it’s real title.
Fear not: The 5th Circuit in New Orleans will slap this “judge” down like stray dog.
Darn....ya caught me.
“U.S. District Judge Sam A. Lindsay”
Bill Clinton appointee.
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.