In another bitter defeat for immigration reform advocates, the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday again ruled Hazleton's Illegal Immigration Relief Act and Rental Registration ordinances to be unconstitutional.
The ruling by a three-member panel of the court upholds a previous ruling that struck down the laws, which sought to prohibit landlords from renting to illegal aliens and imposed fines on businesses that hired them.
The court, in a 47-page opinion, declared the never-enacted laws unconstitutional, finding they sought to supersede federal laws that regulate immigration, which is prohibited by the U.S. Constitution.
The decision marks the second time the 3rd Circuit Court reached that conclusion. In 2010, it upheld a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge James Munley, who also declared the law unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court later ordered it to reconsider that ruling based on precedent-setting decisions it issued in 2011 and 2012 relating to two similar laws in Arizona.
The latest ruling is a "complete victory" for Pedro Lozano and other plaintiffs who challenged Hazleton's ordinance, said Witold "Vic" Walczak of the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs.
"From the beginning, this has been a thinly veiled attempt by Hazleton to change immigration law to exclude immigrants from living and working in Hazleton. The court, yet again, saw through that," Walczak said. "The overwhelming court authority now is that these municipal laws are an unconstitutional regulation of immigration."
The decision does not necessarily end the case, however, as the city has several appellate options available. It can ask for a hearing before the entire 3rd Circuit Court. If that fails, it can again ask the U.S. Supreme Court to hear an appeal.
U.S. Rep. Lou Barletta, R-11, the former Hazleton major who has championed the law, encouraged the city to continue the fight.
"I created this ordinance while I was mayor because I have seen first-hand the toll illegal immigration has on communities," Barletta said. "I believe the Hazleton ordinance is not only constitutional but a common sense approach to a problem that the federal government has turned a blind eye to ⦠I'm disappointed, but it can't end here. This fight must go back to the highest court in the country."
Hazleton Mayor Joseph Yannuzzi said he supports the ordinances and the city will continue to solicit private donations to finance the court fight.
In its latest review, the 3rd Circuit was tasked with determining whether the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings in the two Arizona cases altered its analysis regarding the constitutionality of Hazleton's law.
The key issues in each of the cases hinged on whether laws enacted by local governments attempted to trump federal laws that regulate immigration. The Supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution says federal laws have precedent over local laws.
The court, in one of the Arizona cases, upheld a municipality's law that allowed it to revoke the business license of any business that employed illegal aliens. The court found that law constitutional because it closely mirrored the Immigration Reform Control Act, the federal law that regulates employment of immigrants.
The problem with Hazleton's law, the court said, is that its law strays too afar from the IRCA in several ways, including its definition of what constitutes employment. The IRCA exempts "casual hires," such as contractors, while Hazleton's law is extremely broad, covering virtually any type of employment situation.
The court found that troubling, noting that, under its literal reading, the law would allow the city to sanction a business person if he or she "purchases used items at a yard sale from an unauthorized alien, buys a glass of lemonade from an undocumented child's lemonade stand or pays an undocumented neighbor to mow her lawn."
Regarding the rental ordinance, the court said Hazleton's law would impermissibly regulate immigration, a power that belongs solely to the federal government.
"The housing provisions, in effect, constitute an attempt to remove persons from the city based entirely on a snapshot of their current immigration status," the court wrote. "Accordingly, the housing provision interferes with the federal government's discretion in deciding whether and when to initiate removal proceedings."