www.aclu.orgJOIN THE ACLUTAKE ACTIONABOUT US
ACLU Blog of Rights - Official Blog of the ACLU National Office American Civil Liberties Union Homepage Blog of Rights Homepage Support the ACLU
Mar 24th, 2010
Posted by Farrin Anello, Immigrants' Rights Project at 8:45pm

Third Strike for a Texas City's Anti-Immigrant Laws

Today a federal court in Texas struck down yet another ill-conceived and unconstitutional anti-immigrant law. In response to a lawsuit that the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Texas and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) filed on behalf of residents of the City of Farmers Branch, Texas, Judge Jane J. Boyle permanently barred enforcement of this city’s latest anti-immigrant ordinance.

The challenged ordinance would have made it difficult for immigrants to rent homes, and would have burdened all renters and landlords. It would have required adults who live in rental housing to register with the city, pay a fee, and provide citizenship and immigration information in order to obtain a so-called “residential occupancy license.”  All residents whom the local building inspector deemed “not lawfully present in the United States,” including people living with U.S. citizen children, spouses and parents, would have been denied the right to rent a home.  Landlords whom the building inspector found to have run afoul of the Ordinance would have been barred from collecting rent payments.

In today’s decision, Judge Boyle held that the Ordinance is unconstitutional, because the United States Constitution makes immigration a federal, not a local, issue.  Judge Boyle recognized, as other courts have held, that individual towns and cities are not permitted to effectively expel immigrants from their borders by denying them the right to rent a home.

Ordinance 2952 was Farmers Branch’s third attempt to restrict residency based on immigration status. The city withdrew its first ordinance in the face of legal challenges. The second — and today, the third — was struck down in court on constitutional grounds. In fact, no court has ever approved a local housing ordinance seeking to regulate immigrants.

By refusing to acknowledge the serious constitutional issues raised by Farmers Branch’s anti-immigrant ordinances despite the growing number of court decisions on this issue, the politicians who supported the ordinances have inflamed anti-immigrant sentiment in this city and have squandered taxpayers’ dollars. Farmers Branch has spent approximately $3.3 million defending its unconstitutional anti-immigrant ordinances, and even before the most recent court case, it was struggling to address a $1.2-million budget shortfall.

The plaintiffs’ victory in this case demonstrates once again that such misguided anti-immigrant laws are not only costly and divisive but also unconstitutional.

We intend the comments portion of this blog to be a forum where you can freely express your views on blog postings and on comments made by other people. Given that, please understand that you are responsible for the material you post on the comments portion of this blog. The only postings that we ask that you refrain from posting and that we cannot permit on our website are requests for legal assistance and postings that could cause ACLU to incur legal liability.

One important law in that regard is the prohibition on politically partisan activity. Given our nonprofit status, we may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office. That means we cannot host comments on our site that show a preference for one candidate or party. Although we in no way wish to discourage you from that activity elsewhere, we ask that you not engage in that activity on our website (or include links to other websites that do so). Additionally, given that we are subject to very specific rules concerning the collection of personally identifying information through our website (names, email addresses, home address, financial information, etc.), we ask that you not use the comments portion of this blog to solicit this information from users of our website. We also ask that you not use the comments portion for advertising or requests for legal assistance, and do not add to your comment links to other websites, as we cannot be responsible for the content on other websites.

We are not able to respond to unsolicited inquiries, complaints or requests for assistance sent to this blog. Please direct your complaint or request for assistance to the ACLU affiliate in your state. Requests for legal assistance left in the blog comments will not receive a response or be published.

Finally, the ACLU cannot guarantee the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information in the comment section and expressly disclaims any liability for any information in this section.

9 Responses to "Third Strike for a Texas City's Anti-Immigrant Laws"

  1. Anonymous Says:

    What would the US do without an open border advocate like the ACLU?!

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Its ok to run the country into debt and discriminate against taxpayers and local Govt. to help illegals. Thats great! Are you kidding me? What a joke!

  3. Steve Says:

    It would have made it more difficult for ILLEGAL immigrants to rent,ect. Quit distorting the truth.

  4. Paen Says:

    It used to be that they would burn crosses to drive out undesirable people,
    now they pass town ordinances.

  5. Tony Says:

    What a waste of taxpayer money. When will towns like Farmers Branch realize that the constitution is the rule of law. Great work ACLU. Keep up the fight against ignorance and myths.

  6. Anonymous Says:

    Paen? You're nuts. Just nuts. Don't compare burning crosses to a town's ability to discriminate. Try comparing separate restrooms and this ordinance. You're probably the same person who compares Hitler to republicans.

  7. roald Says:

    anon #6. Paen is right. Conservatives have learned that joining the institution they hate is the best chance they have of maintaining the status quo, what conservatism means.

  8. Anonymous Says:

    I wish the ACLU would move their headquarters to Mexico as it seems they are more interested in protecting law breakers then legal law abiding citizens

  9. Anonymous Says:

    ACLU=Godless

Comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.
 

© ACLU, 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004
This is the Web site of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU Foundation.
Learn more about the distinction between these two components of the ACLU.

User Agreement | Privacy Statement | FAQs | Site Map

Statistics image