Global Immigration Counsel : Immigration Lawyer & Attorney : Littler Mendelson Law Firm : Permanent Residence, Labor Certification : Global Immigration Counsel

The Supreme Court has held that an Arizona law that imposes sanctions on employers that hire unauthorized workers and requires the mandatory use of E-Verify is not preempted by federal law, and therefore valid. The Arizona law at issue – the Legal Arizona Workers Act – provides for the suspension or revocation of an employer’s business license in that state if that employer knowingly or intentionally hires an unauthorized worker. The statute also mandates the use of the E-Verify electronic verification system to check on an employee’s work eligibility. The Court’s decision in Chamber Of Commerce v. Whiting upholding this statute opens the door for other states to enact laws that similarly impose stricter penalties on employers for immigration law violations. To learn more about the decision, please continue reading at Littler's D.C. Employment Law Update blog.

Photo credit: MBPhoto, Inc.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

By Neil M. Alexander and Michael J. Lehet

In our July 2010 ASAP Update, Littler discussed the federal district court decision temporarily enjoining enforcement of certain provisions of Arizona's controversial "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act" ("SB 1070"). On April 11, 2011, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion affirming the district court ruling.

Like the district court decision, the Ninth Circuit opinion does not impact those provisions of SB 1070 that amend the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA). Consequently, LAWA will continue to provide an entrapment defense to employers charged with knowingly or intentionally hiring undocumented workers. LAWA will also continue to require that employers keep a record of each E-Verify verification. Furthermore, the Ninth Circuit opinion does not affect the language of SB 1070 making it a Class 1 Misdemeanor for occupants of a motor vehicle stopped on a street, roadway, or highway, to hire and pick up, or attempt to hire and pick up, passengers for work at a different location, if the motor vehicle blocks or impedes the normal movement of traffic.

The opinion is the second Ninth Circuit decision to weigh in on Arizona's recent immigration debate. As explained in our September 2008 ASAP, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Upholds Legal Arizona Workers Act, the court previously sided with the district court and ruled that LAWA was constitutional. That decision is currently on review before the U.S. Supreme Court. A ruling from the high court is expected within the next several months.

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Washington Post reports that acting Solicitor General Neil Katyal has submitted a brief (pdf) on behalf of the Obama administration urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review and invalidate the Legal Arizona Workers Act (LAWA), a 2008 law that imposes sanctions far greater than those prescribed by federal law on employers that hire illegal immigrants (Note: LAWA is a different law than Arizona’s recently enacted and controversial immigration enforcement law.). The petition (pdf) for Supreme Court review was originally filed by a coalition that includes the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, civil libertarians and Latino groups.

The brief presents the administration’s position that federal law preempts this state law, and argues that upholding the law would:

"disrupt a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country."

• Email This
• Print
• Trackbacks
• Share Link