Anti-Immigrant Ordinances: Hazleton, Pa.
In October 2006, a federal judge issued a restraining order preventing the town of Hazleton, Pa., from enforcing anti-immigrant legislation that it had enacted in the summer of that year. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by the ACLU of Pennsylvania, the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, Cozen O'Connor, the Community Justice Project, and several local attorneys.
Under the Hazleton legislation, businesses that refuse to comply with the laws and investigate the immigration status of employees and tenants would be fined or denied business permits. The law lacks any provision enabling targets of these investigations to effectively challenge determinations as to their status. The ordinances were slated to go into effect November 1, 2006. The city of Hazleton subsequently passed several new ordinances meant to replace the first set of ordinances, which the court also prevented from going into effect pending a full determination of their validity.
Without citing any evidence, Hazleton officials have blamed many of the town's ills, including crime and economic burdens, on undocumented immigrants. Supporters of the law have stated that their goal is to drive so-called "illegal aliens" out of town. Many Hispanics, including legal U.S. residents, have already left Hazleton and Hispanic-owned businesses have had to close down according to business association estimates because of the hostile environment that developed against them and their clientele.
At a two-week trial in March, 2007, the plaintiffs presented evidence showing that Hazleton’s attempt to scapegoat immigrants is based on distorted facts and propaganda, not reality. In truth, Hazleton’s finances have improved since the latest wave of immigration began, and undocumented immigrants are involved in crime at a lower rate than other groups.
In papers filed with the court, the plaintiffs also argue that the ordinances violate the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, overriding federal law and the exclusive federal power over immigration, in addition to violating due process and equal protection rights.
On July 26, 2007, District Court Judge James M. Munley ruled the Hazleton ordinances unconstitutional, and prohibited the town of Hazleton from enforcing them. The town of Hazleton appealed that decision to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. On October 30, 2008, the 3rd Circuit will hear oral arguments in that appeal.
| PRESS RELEASES
> Federal Court Of Appeals Hears Arguments On Hazleton Anti-Immigrant Law (10/30/2008) > Federal Court Strikes Down Discriminatory Anti-Immigrant Law in Hazleton, Pennsylvania (7/26/2007) > Federal Trial Over Hazleton, Pa's Anti-Immigrant Ordinances Concludes (3/22/2007) > Trial Begins in Landmark Challenge to Anti-Immigrant Laws in Hazleton, PA (3/12/2007) > Federal Judge Blocks Hazleton Anti-Immigrant Ordinance (10/31/2006) > Hazleton Law Doesn’t Trump Federal Government, Groups Charge (10/30/2006) > Coalition Gains Immediate Halt to Unconstitutional Ordinance in Hazleton, PA (9/1/2006) > Hazleton Residents Sue to Halt Harsh Anti-Immigrant Law (8/15/2006) LOZANO v. HAZLETON - LEGAL DOCUMENTS >Brief of Appellees (4/8/2008) >Decison (7/26/2007) >Plaintiffs' Post-Trial Findings of Fact and Brief (5/14/2007) >Amicus Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (3/5/2007) >Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Opposition to Hazleton's Motion to Dismiss and Cross Motion for Summary judgment (2/12/2007) >Second Amended Complaint (1/12/2007) >Second Stipulation and Order (11/3/2006) >Temporary Restraining Order (10/31/2006) >First Amended Complaint (PDF) (10/30/2006) >Stipulation and Order (9/1/2006) >Complaint (8/15/2006) > Letter to Mayor Barletta of Hazleton, PA (8/15/2006) LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS > Hazleton, Pa., Ordinance No. 2006-35 (12/13/2006) > Hazleton, Pa., Ordinance No. 2006-18 (9/8/2006) > Hazleton, Pa., Ordinance No. 2006-13 (8/15/2006) |
 |
IN THE STATES The ACLU is fighting discriminatory housing and employment ordinances in the following states: > CALIFORNIA: Garrett v. City of Escondido > GEORGIA: Stewart v. Cherokee County, Ga. > MISSOURI: Reynolds v. City of Valley Park, Mo. > NEW JERSEY: Riverside Coalition of Business Persons and Landlords v. Township of Riverside > TEXAS: Vasquez v. City of Farmers Branch |