United States v. Ernesto Lopez
1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 13989, 521 F.2d 437 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The term "harbor" under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3) is not limited to acts of concealment or conduct connected to the smuggling process, but also encompasses conduct that knowingly and substantially facilitates an alien's ability to remain in the United States illegally.
Facts:
- Ernesto Lopez owned several single-family houses in Nassau County, New York.
- Lopez knowingly rented living quarters in these houses to aliens who were illegally present in the United States, charging them $15 per week.
- Some of the aliens were furnished with the addresses of Lopez's houses before their illegal border crossings and proceeded directly there upon entry.
- Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) investigators found 27 illegal aliens residing in six of Lopez's houses during a search.
- In addition to lodging, Lopez assisted some aliens by filling out job applications on their behalf and transporting them to and from work.
- For substantial sums of money, Lopez also arranged sham marriages for some aliens to help them assume an apparently lawful status in the United States.
Procedural Posture:
- Ernesto Lopez was tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on an indictment for harboring illegal aliens.
- At the conclusion of the government's case, Lopez filed motions to dismiss the indictment, arguing his actions did not legally constitute 'harboring' and that the statute was unconstitutional.
- The district court (the trial court) denied Lopez's motions.
- Lopez subsequently pleaded guilty to a superseding information charging him with conspiracy to harbor illegal aliens.
- With the court's permission, Lopez's guilty plea reserved his right to appeal the district court's denial of his pre-plea motions.
- Lopez (as appellant) appealed the district court's rulings to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does providing shelter and other assistance to an alien, with knowledge of their illegal status, constitute 'harboring' under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3) if that conduct substantially facilitates the alien's ability to remain in the country, regardless of whether it involves concealment or is connected to smuggling?
Opinions:
Majority - Mansfield, Circuit Judge
Yes, conduct that substantially facilitates an alien's continued illegal presence in the United States constitutes harboring under 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(3). The court reasoned that the legislative history of the 1952 act, which added the words "or remaining" to the statutory purpose, indicates Congress intended to prohibit conduct beyond the initial smuggling process. The court also noted that the statute's specific exemption for employment would be superfluous if 'harboring' were narrowly construed to only include acts related to smuggling. Furthermore, the primary dictionary definition of 'harbor' is simply 'to give shelter or refuge to,' which does not inherently require concealment. The court rejected Lopez's due process claim, finding that the statute provided fair warning that his conduct was prohibited, and dismissed his equal protection argument by noting a rational basis exists for distinguishing between landlords and employers in their capacity to ascertain a person's legal status.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadened the interpretation of 'harboring' under federal immigration law, moving beyond a narrow focus on clandestine concealment or smuggling activities. It established that providing essential support systems, such as shelter and employment assistance, can constitute a felony if done with knowledge of an individual's undocumented status. This puts landlords, and others who provide services, on notice that they face potential criminal liability for facilitating an alien's continued illegal presence. The case affirmed Congress's intent to target not only those involved in illegal entry but also those who help sustain an undocumented population within the country.
