Preempting state e-verify regulations: A case study of arizona's improper legislation in the field of "immigration-related employment practices"

Washington Law Review

Volumn 84, Issue 2, 2009, Pages 289-316

  Feller, Rachel ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 69249096970     PISSN: 00430617     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (259)

1. Pew Hispanic Ctr., Trends in Unauthorized Immigration: Undocumented Inflow Now trails Legal Inflow 1 (2008), available at http://pewhispanic.org/ reports/report.php?ReportID=94, permanent copy available at http://www.law. washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289nl.pdf.
2. Id.
3. Immigrant policy Project, Nat'l Conference of State Legislatures, 2007 enacted State Legislation Related to Immigrants and Immigration 1 (2008),available at http://www.ncsl.org/print/immig/2007Immigrationfinal.pdf, permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/ 84washlrev289n3.pdf.
4. Id. at 2 (stating that 29 bills passed in 20 states addressed immigrant employment).
5. See infra Part II.B.
6. See infra Part IV. Legal Arizona Workers Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-211 to 23-215 (West 2007) (requiring E-Verify's use by all employers)
7. Colo. REV. Stat. Ann. § 8-17.5-102 (West 2006) (requiring use by Colorado contractors and subcontractors working on public contracts);
8. Ga. Code Ann., § 48-7-21.1 (2007) (requiring use by all Georgia public employers and their contractors and subcontractors);
9. Idaho Exec. Order No. 2006-40, (Dec. 13,2006) (mandating use by state agencies and their contractors);
10. Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, 820 III. Comp. Stat.Ann. 55/12 (West 2007) (prohibiting E-Verify's use until proven 99 percentaccurate);
11. Minnesota Exec. Order No. 08-01 (Jan. 7, 2008) (mandating use by state agencies and contractors for public projects over $50,000);
12. Laws Regarding illegal Aliens and Immigration Status Verification, H.B. 1549 (Mo.2008) (requiring Missouri contractors receiving state contracts of more that $5,000 to use E-Verify);
13. Mississippi Employment Protection Act, Miss. Code Ann. § 71-11-3 (2008) (requiring participation by all public and private employers through staggered compliance date requirements depending on the size of the business);
14. Technical Corrections Act, 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws 259, §23.1(a) (2006) (mandating participation by North Carolina state agencies);
15. Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 25, § 1313 (2007) (requiring participation by all Oklahoma public employers and their contractors and subcontractors);
16. S.C. Code §§ 8-14-20, 41-8-20 (mandating use by all South Carolina employers)
17. Illegal Immigration Control Order, Rhode Island Exec. Order No. 08-01 (Mar. 27, 2008) (requiring use by state agencies and their contractors and subcontractors).
18. Act Relative to the Employment of Illegal Aliens, Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-1-103 (2007) (encouraging E-Verify's use in Tennessee by not imposing sanctions on employers who check employee status with the program);
19. Identity Documents and Verification Act, utah code Ann. § 63G-11-103 (2008) (requiring the program's use by all Utah public employers and their contractors and subcontractors).
20. See also Immigrant Policy Project, supra note 3, at 8-10;
21. Immigrant policy Project, Frequently Asked questions, http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig/EVerifyFAQ.htm, permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289n6.pdf.
22. See Arkansas Taxpayer and Citizenship Protection Act of 2009, H.B. 1093, 87th Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ark. 2009), available at http://www.arkleg.state. ar.us/assembly/2009/R/Pages/BillInformation.aspx?measureno=HB1093.
23. H.B. 1098, 116th Gen. Assem. (Ind. 2009), available at http://www.in.gov/legislative/bills/2009/IN/IN1098.l.html;
24. H.B. 441, 2009 Gen. Assem., Reg. Sess. (Ky. 2009), available at http://www.lrc.ky.gov/record/09RS/HB441.htm
25. Nebraska Fair and Legal Employment Act, Legis. B. 34, 101st Leg.. (Neb. 2009), available at http://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view-bill.php? DocumentID=6261;
26. Illegal Immigration, H.B. 0103, 60th Leg., 2009 Gen. Sess. (Wyo. 2009), available at http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2009/Titles/HBO103.htm;
27. Tex. Art'y Gen. Op. No. GA-0695 (2009), available at http://www.oag. state.tx.us/opinions/opinions/50abbott/op/2009/htm/ga-0695.htm. Permanent copies of the state bills and Texas attorney general opinion letter are available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289n7.pdf.
28. See generally Austin T. Fragomen, New Challenges in Complying with State Immigration Employment Laws, 86 interpreter releases 1037 (2009) (providing an overview of state laws relating to employment verification).
29. Legal Arizona Workers Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-211 to 23-215 (West 2007)
30. see also infra Part 1V.A. The Ninth Circuit upheld the Arizona law against a facial challenge.
31. Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
32. Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, 820 ILL. comp. stat. ann. 55/12 (West). In March 2009, an Illinois federal district court invalidated the law under the Supremacy Clause.
33. United States v. Illinois, No. 07-3261,2009 WL 662703, at *1 (CD. 111. Mar. 12, 2009).
34. Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-211 to 23-215.
35. 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
36. Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (relevant sections codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006)).
37. In the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Congress used the term "Unfair Immigration-Related Employment Practices" to refer primarily to discriminatory hiring.
38. Id. § 1324b. This Comment will apply the term to include employer sanctions that result from hiring undocumented workers.
39. U.S. Const, Art. 1, § 8, cl. 4 (granting Congress the power to establish an uniform Rule ot Naturalization").
40. Id. cl. 3 (granting Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations").
41. See, e.g., De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 354 (1976) ("Power to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.");
42. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 63 (1941).
43. Chae Chan Ping v. United States [hereinafter Chinese Exclusion Case], 130 U.S. 581, 603-04 (1889).
44. Ira J. Kurzban, Kurzban's Immigration Law Sourcebook 3 (11th ed. 2008).
45. Act of March 3, 1875, ch. 141, §§ 2-3, 18 Stat. 477, 477 (repealed 1974) (prohibiting the entry of Chinese, Japanese, and "oriental" workers without their consent as well as the entry of prostitutes).
46. The chinese Exclusion Case, 130 U.S. 581.
47. Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, ch. 126, 22 Stat. 58 (repealed 1943).
48. Immigration Act of 1882, ch. 376,22 Stat. 214.
49. 130 U.S. 581 (1889). This case, though widely cited as the first instance in which the Court recognized the federal government's power over immigration matters, has been criticized for its racist tone.
50. See, e.g., Louis Henkin, The Constitution and United States Sovereignty: A Century of Chinese Exclusion and Its Progeny, 100 Harv. L. Rev. 853, 858-63 (1987).
51. The Chinese Exclusion Case, 30 U.S. at 609 ("The power of exclusion of foreigners being an incident of sovereignty belonging to the government of the United States as a part of those sovereign powers delegated by the constitution, the right to its exercise at any time when, in the judgment of the government, the interests of the country require it, cannot be granted away or restrained on behalf of any one.").
52. Id. at 606.
53. See, e.g., Immigration Act of 1917, ch. 29, 39 Stat. 874 (repealed 1952);
54. Alien Enemies Act of 1918, ch. 55,40 Stat. 531.
55. Quota Act of 1921, ch. 8,42 Stat. 5 (repealed 1952).
56. Immigration Act of 1924, ch. 190, 43 Stat. 153 (repealed 1952).
57. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52,62-63 (1941).
58. 312 U.S. 52 (1941).
59. Id. at 73-74.
60. Id. at 66 (citation omitted).
61. Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, Pub. L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (codified as amended at 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101-1537 (2006)).
62. Id.
63. 424 U.S. 351 (1976)
64. Id. at 353.
65. Id. at 354.
66. Id. at 353-54.
67. Id. at 359.
68. Id. at 360.
69. Id. at 355.
70. Id. at 355-56.
71. Id. at 356 (emphasis added).
72. Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat. 3359 (relevant sections codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006)).
73. Id.
74. H.R. Rep. No. 104-269, at 108, 128 (1996).
75. Pub. L. No. 104-208, §§ 401-05, 110 Stat. 3009-655, 3009-655 to 3009-666 (1996) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101).
76. Id.
77. The House of Representatives passed bills addressing the employment of undocumented workers in the early 1970s, but the bills stalled in the Senate despite support from Presidents Nixon and Ford. Nancy Humel montwieler, The Immigration Reform Law of 1986 4 (1987).
78. Act of Oct. 5, 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-412,92 Stat. 907 (1978).
79. Montwieler, supra note 45, at 4.
80. Id. at 5.
81. Id. at 6-7.
82. Id. at 10.
83. Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L. No. 99-603, 100 Stat.1986 3359 (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1324a (2006)).
84. The House approved the conference bill by a vote of 238 to 173, and the Senate 63 to 24.
85. Montwieler,supra note 45, at 15-18.
86. Id. at 539, 543 (Reprint of President Reagan's Signing Statement).
87. Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(l)(A).
88. Id. § 1324a(a)-(b).
89. Id. § 1324a(b)(l)(B)-(D).
90. Id. § 1324a(b)(l)(A).
91. Id. § 1324a(b)(6)(A).
92. Id. § 1324a(e)(l).
93. Id. § 1324a(e)(4). Paperwork violations carry maximum fines of one thousand dollars.
94. Id. § 1324a(e)(5).
95. Id. § 1324a(e)(3)(A)-(B).
96. Id. § 1324a(e)(3)(C).
97. id. § 1324a(e)(8). This has since led to the creation of a body of administrative-law jurisprudence on whether an employer knowingly hires an undocumented worker.
98. See, e.g., 1-8 DEP'T OF JUSTICE, ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS UNDER EMPLOYER SANCTIONS, UNFAIR IMMIGRATION-RELATED EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES AND CIVIL PENALTY DOCUMENT FRAUD LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES (2000).
99. Id. § 1324a(h)(2).
100. See infra Part IV.
101. H.R. REP. No. 104-269, at 108, 128 (1996).
102. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009-655, §§ 3009-655 to 3009-745 (1996) (codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C. and 18 U.S.C.).
103. H.R. REP. No. 104-828, pt. 4 at 108, pt. 3 at 128 (1996).
104. Id.
105. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act §§ 401(c)(l)-(3).
106. Id. § 403(a).
107. Id. § 403(b).
108. Id. § 403(c).
109. Dep't of Homeland Security, E-Verify, http://www.dhs.gov/xprevprot/ programs/gc-1185221678150.shtm (last visited April 26, 2009), permanent copyavailable at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289n72.pdf.
110. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act § 402(a). Congress decided the federal government would participate by requiring the executive departments and the legislative branch to use pilot programs available in the state where they are hiring.
111. Id. § 402(e)(1).
112. Id. § 403(a)(3)(A).
113. The database, as currently structured, is an updated version of the original Basic Pilot Program. Today the database is run by DHS, which took over the responsibilities of the INS in 2003. Dep't of Homeland Security, Program Highlights, http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis (follow "Form 1-9" hyperlink; then follow "E-Verify" hyperlink; then follow "E-Verify Program Highlights" hyperlink) (last visited April 26, 2009), permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/ 84washlrev289n75.pdf.
114. Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act § 403(a)(4)(A)-(B).
115. Id. § 403(a)(4)(B)(iii).
116. Id. §§ 403(a)(4)(B)(i), 404(c).
117. Id. § 404(c). In conjunction with § 403(a)(4)(B)(ii), this provision creates a final non-confirmation provided the employee does not object to the non-confirmation within the specified time period.
118. Id. § 403(a)(4)(C).
119. Pub.L. 107-128, 115 Stat. 2407 (2001) (codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1101, 1324a).
120. Pub. L. 108-156, 17 Stat. 1944 2003(codified in scattered sections of 8 U.S.C).
121. Id. § 3.
122. Id. § 2.
123. For a thorough discussion on proposed changes to E-Verify of 2008
124. see Austin T. Fragomen, Political Deadlock: Update on Immigration Legislation in the 110th Congress, in 41ST annual Immigration and Naturalization Institute, at 13 (PLI Corp. Law & Practice, Course Handbook Series No. 13921,2008).
125. Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, Pub. L. 110-329, §§ 106(3), 143, 122 Stat. 3574, 3575,3580 (2008).
126. 604 Cong. Rec. S2643 (daily ed. Mar. 9, 2009) (statement of Sen. Sessions)
127. Amendment 604, CR-S2643 (proposed Mar. 9, 2009).
128. Omnibus Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 111-8, § 101, 123 Stat. 524, Division J (2009) ("SEC. 101. Sections 143, 144, and 145 of division A of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009 (Public Law 110-329; 122 Stat. 3580 et seq.) are each amended by striking 'the date specified in section 106(3) of this joint resolution' and inserting 'September 30,2009"').
129. HOMELAND SEC. LEADERSHIP J., May 21, 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/journal/ leadership/2008/05/debunking-e-verify-capacity-problem.html, permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289n89.pdf.
130. Id. Data suggest that large employers are the most likely to use the system. Ten percent of new U.S. hires are verified by E-Verify. These new hires, however, work for only one percent of the nation's employers.
131. See Micah Bump, Immigration, Technology, and the Worksite: The Challenges of Electronic Employment Verification, 22 geo. Immigr. L.J. 391, 399 (2008).
132. Stephen A. Brown, Illegal Immigrants in the Workplace: Why Electronic Verification Benefits Employers, 8 N.C. J.L. & Tech. 349, 384-86 (2007).
133. Id. at 387-89.
134. Westat Report to the Department of Homeland Security, Findings of the Web Basic Pilot Evaluation 56-58 (2007), available at http://www.uscis.gov/files/ article/WebBasicPilotRprtSept2007.pdf ("The accuracy of the USCIS [United States Citizenship and Immigration Services] database used forverification has improved substantially since the start of the Basic Pilot program. However, further improvements are needed, especially if the Web Basic Pilot becomes a mandated national program."), permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wIr/notes/84washlrev289n93a.pdf
135. see also Nat'l Immigration Law ctr., Erecting Its Own Tombstone: Arizona's Mandatory E-Verify/Basic Pilot Law 1 (2008), http://www.nilc.org/ immsemplymnt/state-local/AZ-factsheet-2008~04-25.pdf, permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington.edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289n93b.pdf.
136. Bump, supra note 90, at 393.
137. Bump, supra note 90, at 393-94.
138. Westat Report to the Department of Homeland Security, supra note 93,at 97
139. see also Nat'L Immigration Law Ctr., supra note 93, at l.
140. Nat'L Immigration Law Ctr., supra note 93, at 1-2.
141. Id. at 2.
142. U.S. const, art. VI, § 2.
143. See, e.g., Crosby v. Nat'l Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363(2000).
144. Geier v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000);
145. United States v. Locke, 529 U.S. 89 (2000);
146. Pennsylvania v. Nelson, 350 U.S. 497 (1956).
147. Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470, 485 (1996) (quoting Retail Clerks v. Schermerhorn, 375 U.S. 96, 103 (1963))(internal citations omitted).
148. Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, -U.S. -, 129 S. Ct. 538, 543 (2008) (citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.S. 519, 525 (1977)).
149. Fla. Lime & Avocado Growers, Inc. v. Paul, 373 U.S. 132, 142 (1963).
150. Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280, 287 (1995) (stating that implied conflict preemption occurs where it is '"impossible for a private party to comply with both state and federal requirements'" (quoting English v. Gen. Elec. Co., 496 U.S. 72,79 (1990))).
151. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941) (finding that conflict preemption under the category of frustration of purpose exists when state law "stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress").
152. Ahria Group.,129 S. Ct. at 543 (quoting Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U.S. 218, 230 (1947)) (internal quotations omitted; alterations in original).
153. Bates v. Dow Agrosciences L.L.C., 544 U.S. 431,449 (2005).
154. Ahria Group, 129 S. Ct. at 543 (citing Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470,485 (1995)).
155. See infra Part IV.A-B.
156. See infra Part IV.C.
157. Pew Hispanic Ctr., Arizona: Population and Labor Force Characteristics,2000-2006, at 1 (2008), available at http://pewhispanic.org/ files/factsheets/37.pdf, permanent copy available at http://www.law.washington. edu/wlr/notes/84washlrev289nl10.pdf.
158. Fair and Legal Employment Act: Hearing on H.B. 2779 Before the S. Comm. on Appropriations, 48th Leg., 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2007) (statement of Sen.Aboud, Member, S. Comm. on Appropriations) ("This is a federal issue.");
159. id. (statement of Sen. Hale, Member, S. Comm. on Appropriations) ("This is a federal responsibility.");
160. see also Fair and Legal Employment Act: Minority Report on H.B. 2779, 48th Leg., 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2007) (statement of Rep. Gallardo) ("I stand opposed to HB 2779 (The Fair and Legal Employment Act) because it is a piecemeal, unconstitutional immigration scheme. Only the Federal Government cantruly propose a resolution to our broken immigration system.").
161. Fair and Legal Employment Act: Hearing on H.B. 2779 Before the S. Comm. on Appropriations, 48th Leg., 1st Sess. (Ariz. 2007) (statement of Sen. Garcia, Member, S. Comm. on Appropriations).
162. Id. (statement of Sen. Huppenthal).
163. Legal Arizona Workers Act, Ariz. Rev. Stat. ANN. §§ 23-211 to 23-215 (West,2007).
164. Id. § 23-214.
165. Id. §§ 23-212(C)-(F).
166. Id. § 23-211(8) ('"Knowingly employ an unauthorized alien' means the actions described in 8 United States Code § 1324a. This term shall be interpreted consistently with 8 United States Code § 1324a and any applicable federal rules and regulations.").
167. Id. § 23-212(F)(1)(d) ("The court... shall consider the following factors... (i) The number of unauthorized aliens employed by the employer, (ii) Any prior misconduct by the employer, (iii) The degree of harm resulting from the violation, (iv) Whether the employer made good faith effortsto comply with any applicable requirements, (v) The duration of the violation, (vi) The role of the directors, officers or principals of the employerin the violation, (vii) Any other factors the court deems appropriate.").
168. Janet Napolitano was sworn in as Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security on January 21,2009.
169. Governor's Message to House on H.B. 2779, 48th Leg., 1st Sess. (Ariz.2007) (statement of Governor Janet Napolitano).
170. Id.
171. Id.
172. Id.
173. Id.
174. Mississippi Employment Protection Act,Miss. CODE Ann. § 71-11-3 (2008).
175. Id. § 71-ll-3(8)(c)(i).
176. Georgia Security and Immigration Compliance Act,Ga. CODE ANN.,§ 48-7-21.1 (2007).
177. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-17.5-102 (West 2006).
178. Ga. Code Ann., § 48-7-21.1 (2007);
179. Idaho Exec. Order No. 2006-40, (Dec. 13, 2006);
180. Minnesota Exec. Order No. 08-01 (Jan. 7, 2008).
181. Technical Corrections Act, 2006 N.C. Sess. Laws 259, § 23.1(a) (2006).
182. Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, okla. stat. Ann. tit. 25, § 1313 (2007);
183. Illegal Immigration Control Order, Rhode Island Exec. Order No. 08-01 (Mar. 27, 2008);
184. Identity Documents and Verification Act, Utah Code Ann. § 63G-11-103 (2008).
185. Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 8-17.5-102.
186. In March 2009, an Illinois federal district court invalidated the Illinois provision under the Supremacy Clause.
187. United States v. Illinois, No. 07-3261, 2009 WL 662703 (CD. 111. Mar. 12)
188. Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, 820 ILL. COMP. STAT. Ann. 55 § 12(a) (LexisNexis 2007).
189. 820 III. Comp. Stat. Ann. 55 § 12(b).
190. Id. § 12(c).
191. 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir.2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
192. 424 U.S. 351 (1976).
193. Chicanospor la Causa, 558 F.3d at 864 (quoting DeCanas, 424 U.S. at 356, 365).
194. 535 U.S. 137(2002).
195. Id. at 147 (quoting INS v. Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194 and n.8 (1991)).
196. Chicanos por la Causa, 558 F.3d at 865 ("We conclude that, because the power to regulate the employment of unauthorized aliens remains within the states' historic police powers, an assumption of non-preemption applies here.").
197. 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) (2006) (emphasis added).
198. Chicanos por la Causa, 558 F.3d at 864-67.
199. Id. at 864.
200. Id. at 866.
201. Id.
202. Id. The Ninth Circuit's initial decision did not address field preemption.
203. Id. at 866-67.
204. Id. at 986. The court also noted that "'[licensing generally refers to 'a governmental body's process of issuing a license,' and a 'license' is 'a permission, usually revocable, to commit some act that would otherwise be unlawful.'"
205. Id. at 984 (quoting BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY 940, 938 (8th ed. 2004) (internal citations omitted)).
206. Chicanos por la Causa, 558 F.3d 856 (9th Cir. 2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
207. Id. at 860.
208. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 527 (2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-3531 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2007).
209. See generally Karla Mari McKanders, Welcome to Hazleton! "Illegal" Immigrants Beware: Local Immigration Ordinances and What the Federal Government Must Do About It, 39 Loy. U. CHI. L.J. 1 (2007) (examining the constitutionality of municipal ordinances sanctioning businesses that employ undocumented workers).
210. Loiano, 496 F. Supp. 2d at 515 (quoting Ordinance 2006-18 at § 4.A).
211. Id. at 527.
212. Id. at 518 n.41.
213. Id. at 519.
214. Id.
215. Id. at 521-25.
216. Id. at 527. The court also noted that the time frames of the local ordinance directly conflicted with IRCA.
217. Id.
218. Id. at 528 (stating that both laws seek "to prevent the employment of persons not authorized to work in the United States while not overburdening the employer in determining whether an employee or perspective employee isan authorized worker").
219. No. Civ-08-109-C, 2008 WL 2329164 (W.D. Okla. Jun. 4, 2008) (order granting preliminary injunction), appeal docketed. No. 08-06204 (10th Cir. Jun. 16,2008).
220. Id at*6, *8.
221. Id. at*7.
222. No. 4.07-CV-00881, 2008 WL 294294 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008).
223. Id. at *8 ("[T]his Court must determine whether the Ordinance in question involves an area of law traditionally governed by the states, the regulation of business licenses, or an area traditionally governed by the Federal government, immigration.").
224. Id.
225. Id. at*13.
226. Id. at*13-16.
227. Id. at* 17-19.
228. No. 07-3261,2009 WL 662703 (CD. 111. Mar. 12,2009).
229. Id. at*1.
230. Id. at *2 (quoting Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52,67 (1941)).
231. Id.
232. See, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Chertoff, No. 8:08-cv-03444-AW (S.D. Md. Dec. 23, 2008) (challenging Executive Order 13,465 as a violation of IIRIRA because it requires federal contractors to participate in E-Verify).
233. Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Henry, No. Civ-08-109-C, 2008 WL 2329164 (W.D. Okla. Jun. 4, 2008) (order granting preliminary injunction), appeal docketed, No. 08-06204 (10th Cir. Jun. 16,2008).
234. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-3531 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2007).
235. Immigration Reform and Control Act, Pub. L. No. 99-603, § 115(1), 100 Stat. 3359 (1986) (emphasis added).
236. The Supreme Court has recognized that "IRCA forcefully made combating the employment of illegal aliens central to the policy of immigration law." Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002) (quoting INS v. Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194 (1991)(internal markings omitted)).
237. See supra Part II.
238. DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 360 (1976).
239. Id. ("Congress believes this problem [of hiring undocumented workers] does not yet require uniform national rules and is appropriately addressed by the States as a local matter.").
240. Id. at 356.
241. Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
242. Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Henry, No. Civ-08-109-C, 2008 WL 2329164, at *5-6 (W.D. Okla. Jun. 4, 2008) (order granting preliminary injunction), appeal docketed, No. 08-06204 (10th Cir. Jun. 16, 2008);
243. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 527 (2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-3531 (3d Cir. Aug. 30, 2007). Because of the procedural posture of Henry, it is unclear whether the court will ultimately find the law to be unconstitutional.
244. But see Gray v. City of Valley Park, No. 4:07-cv-00881, 2008 WL 294294, at *13 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (relying on DeCanas to find that "IRCA does not manifest an intent of Congress to occupy the entire field of immigration law").
245. Immigration Reform and Control Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2)(1986).
246. But see Gray v. City of Valley Park, No. 4:07-cv-00881, 2008 WL 294294, at * 12 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31, 2008) (determining that "the wording of the statute is perfectly clear" and concluding that "[tjhere is no requirement in the statute that a finding be made by the federal government that a person has employed, recruited or referred for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens, only that those are the individuals who are subject to penalty").
247. H.R. REP. No. 99-682, pt. 1 at 58 (1986) reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5662. The Report continues: "Further, the committee does not intend to preempt licensing or 'fitness to do business laws,' such as state farm labor contractor laws or forestry laws, which specifically require such licensee or contractor to refrain from hiring, recruiting or referring undocumented aliens." This clause does not affect the analysis of this Comment: State licensing or fitness-to-business laws that prohibit the employment of undocumented workers are enforceable, but only the federal government has the authority to find that an employer did so.
248. Id. (emphasis added).
249. Id.
250. Id. (emphasis added).
251. It is likely that Arizona, in its capacity as an employer, could require state agencies to use E-Verify on new hires. However, as this use of E-Verify would not include sanctions or license revocation, it is beyond thescope of this Comment.
252. But see Ariz. Contractors Ass'n v. Candelaria, 534 F. Supp. 2d 1036, 1054 (D. Ariz. 2007) (finding that the "Act's adjudicatory procedures do not conflict with federal law merely because a State Superior Court judge and a federal administrative law judge could disagree about the evidence").
253. aff'd, Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 558 F.3d 856, 865 (9th Cir. 2009), amending on denial of rehearing and rehearing en banc, and superseding Chicanos por la Causa v. Napolitano, 544 F.3d 976 (9th Cir. 2008).
254. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477, 519 (2007), appeal docketed, No. 07-3531 (3d Cir. Aug. 30,2007).
255. See supra Part II.B;
256. see also United States v. Illinois, No. 07-3261, 2009 WL 662703 (CD. 111. Mar. 12,2009).
257. See Chicanos por la Causa, 558 F.3d at 867 ("Here, E-Verify is a federal government service that Congress has implicitly strongly encouraged by expanding its duration and its availability (to all fifty states).... Though Congress did not mandate E-Verify, Congress plainly envisioned and endorsed an increase in its usage.")
258. Gray v. City of Valley Park, No. 4:07-cv-00881,2008 WL 294294 (E.D. Mo. Jan. 31,2008).
259. See Illinois, 2009 WL 662703, at *2 (noting that Congress, not Illinois, dictates the testing, length of testing, availability, and usage of E-Verify).