Today, the Northern District of Alabama entered its much anticipated opinions regarding Alabama’s Immigration Act. In a mixed ruling contained in two separate opinions, the Court decided that only some of the provisions of that Act were unenforceable. These opinions were handed down in two related cases, one brought by the United States and one brought by leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist, and Catholic churches of Alabama.
The following provisions were ruled unenforceable:
- Section 11(a), which makes it a crime for any illegal immigrant to apply for, solicit, or perform work
- Section 13, which makes it a crime to harbor, transport, or invite into this state any illegal immigrant
- Section 16, which forbids employers from claiming as business tax deductions any wages paid to illegal immigrants
- Section 17, which establishes a civil cause of action against an employer who hires an illegal immigrant but not a legal resident or citizen
Specifically, the Court determined that these sections violated the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because they were improper attempts on the part of the state of Alabama to regulate an area of the law that is reserved for the federal government—immigration.
As for the other sections that the United States had challenged (Sections 10, 12(a), 18, 27, 28, and 30), the Court ruled that the United States had not established that they were preempted by federal law and, therefore, denied the request for an injunction as to those sections. As for the other sections that the church leaders had challenged (Sections 25 and 27), the Court ruled that the church leaders lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality and enforceability of those sections.
A brief summary of the two cases follows:
The Case of the United States
On August 1, 2011, the United States filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama seeking to enjoin the enforcement of certain provisions of Alabama’s Anti-Immigration Act (H.B. 56). Specifically the United States challenged the enforceability of these provisions of the immigration law:
- Section 10, which makes it a crime to fail to complete or carry an alien registration document
- Section 11(a), which makes it a crime for any illegal immigrant to apply for, solicit, or perform work
- Section 12(a), which requires law enforcement officers to determine the citizenship and immigration status of any person stopped or arrested, if there is reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal immigrant
- Section 13, which makes it a crime to harbor, transport, or invite into this state any illegal immigrant
- Section 16, which forbids employers from claiming as business tax deductions any wages paid to illegal immigrants
- Section 17, which establishes a civil cause of action against an employer who hires an illegal immigrant but not a legal resident or citizen
- Section 18, which requires that officers take persons arrested for driving without a license to a magistrate for a determination of the person’s immigration/citizenship status
- Section 27, which prohibits Alabama state courts from recognizing or enforcing contracts between an illegal immigrant and any other party
- Section 28, which requires every public school in Alabama to determine the immigration status of any enrolled student who was born outside of the United States
- Section 30, which makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to enter into a business transaction with the state
The United States argued that these provisions of the immigration law were unenforceable, because they are preempted by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, the United States argued that immigration is a matter of federal law and the Alabama law is an improper attempt to regulate federal issues.
The Case of the Church Leaders
On August 2, 2011, leaders of the Episcopal, Methodist, and Roman Catholic churches of Alabama filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. They filed suit against Governor Bentley and other state officials for declaratory and injunctive relief from the new Alabama immigration law. Specifically the church leaders took issue with these provisions of the immigration law:
- Section 13(a)(1), which makes it a crime to “[c]onceal, harbor or shield” an illegal immigrant
- Section 13(a)(2), which makes it a crime to “[e]ncourage or induce an alien” without legal status “to come to or reside in this state”
- Section 13(a)(3), which makes it a crime to “[t]ransport” an illegal immigrant if that immigrant “has come to, has entered, or remains in the United States in violation of federal law”
- Section 13(a)(4), which makes it a crime to “harbor an alien unlawfully present . . . by entering into a rental agreement”
- Section 27(a), which prohibits Alabama state courts from recognizing or enforcing contracts between an illegal immigrant and any other party
- Section 25, which imposes penalties on individuals who are harbored, transported, or induced in violation of Section 13.
Specifically the church leaders argued that the immigration law violates the following provisions of the U.S. Constitution and federal law:
- Freedom of Religion protected by the First Amendment
- Freedom of Assembly protected by the First Amendment
- Freedom of Speech protected by the First Amendment
- Equal Protection of the Laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
- Due Process of the Law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment
- Prohibition Against Laws Impairing the Obligation of Contracts granted by the Fourteenth Amendment
The church leaders’ case and the one brought by the United States were consolidated temporarily with a similar case filed by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama.
On August 24, 2011, one week before the immigration law was to take effect, the Court held a hearing for all three cases on the requests for an injunction prohibiting the state officers from enforcing the immigration law. On August 29, 2011, the Court ordered that enforcement of the law be temporarily enjoined to allow enough time to fully consider the merits of the case. That temporary injunction was to expire tomorrow, September 29, 2011.