Pedro Lozano, et al. v. City of Hazleton
496 F.Supp.2d 477 (2007)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal immigration law comprehensively occupies the field of regulating the employment and residency of aliens, thereby preempting local ordinances that attempt to impose civil penalties on employers for hiring and landlords for renting to individuals deemed to be in the country unlawfully.
Facts:
- Following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the City of Hazleton experienced a sharp population increase due to an influx of immigrants, most of whom were Latino, moving from New York and New Jersey.
- The new arrivals included United States citizens, lawful permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants.
- In 2006, the City of Hazleton enacted several ordinances to combat what it viewed as problems created by the presence of 'illegal aliens.'
- The 'Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance' (IIRA) prohibited any business from hiring or continuing to employ an 'unlawful worker' and prohibited landlords from 'harboring' 'illegal aliens' by renting to them.
- The IIRA created a system where complaints could be filed against businesses or landlords, leading to verification of immigration status and potential suspension of business or rental licenses.
- The 'Tenant Registration Ordinance' (RO) required every person seeking to occupy a rental unit to first obtain an 'occupancy permit' from the city.
- To obtain an occupancy permit, an applicant was required to provide 'proper identification showing proof of legal citizenship and/or residency.'
- Plaintiff Pedro Lozano, a landlord and lawful permanent resident, found it difficult to rent his property after the ordinances passed because prospective tenants feared the new registration requirements.
Procedural Posture:
- A group of individuals, business owners, landlords, and organizations sued the City of Hazleton in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania.
- The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Hazleton's ordinances regulating the employment and housing of immigrants were unconstitutional and violated federal statutes.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction to prevent the ordinances from taking effect.
- The district court granted the plaintiffs' request for a TRO.
- The parties later stipulated to extend the TRO until the trial and resolution of the case.
- The court consolidated the hearing on the preliminary injunction with a final trial on the merits for injunctive relief.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do federal immigration laws preempt a city's ordinances that penalize employers for hiring and landlords for renting to individuals whom the city classifies as 'illegal aliens,' and do these ordinances violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Munley, J.
Yes, federal immigration laws preempt the city's ordinances. The employment provisions are expressly preempted by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA), which contains a specific preemption clause forbidding state or local laws from imposing civil or criminal sanctions for employing unauthorized aliens. The court rejected Hazleton's argument that its business permit suspension fell under IRCA's 'licensing' exception, finding the legislative history shows that exception only applies when a license is revoked for a violation of federal law, not a separate local ordinance. Furthermore, the court found the entire field of immigration regulation, including employment of aliens, is preempted by the pervasive federal scheme. The court distinguished DeCanas v. Bica, noting it was decided before Congress enacted the comprehensive IRCA scheme. The ordinances also create a conflict with federal law by establishing different verification standards, creating a private cause of action not found in federal law, and imposing mandatory termination deadlines that contradict federal procedures. The housing provisions are also conflict-preempted because they create a local system for determining who can reside in the city, a complex power reserved exclusively for the federal government, and would deny housing to individuals whom federal authorities, in their discretion, permit to remain in the country. Finally, the ordinances violate the Due Process Clause by depriving employers, employees, landlords, and tenants of protected property and liberty interests without adequate notice or a meaningful opportunity to be heard, as they fail to provide notice to affected individuals and refer parties to state courts that lack jurisdiction to determine immigration status.
Analysis:
This decision was a landmark ruling in the area of state and local immigration regulation, establishing strong precedent that municipalities cannot create their own schemes to penalize the hiring or housing of undocumented immigrants. It forcefully reaffirmed the principle that immigration is an area of exclusive federal authority, providing a legal blueprint for challenges to similar laws that emerged across the country. The court's thorough preemption analysis, particularly its distinction of the pre-IRCA DeCanas precedent, significantly shaped the legal landscape for future litigation over local immigration enforcement. The opinion also underscores that due process protections extend to all 'persons,' regardless of their immigration status.
