ALERT: Judge expected to rule on Illegal Immigration Relief Act today (Hazleton Standard-Speaker)

By WADE MALCOLM
Staff Writer

A federal judge is expected to rule today on the constitutionality of Hazleton’s illegal immigration ordinance, setting the stage for a long-awaited decision that could affect dozens of communities locally and hundreds more around the country.

U.S. District Judge James M. Munley’s ruling in the landmark case will decide whether local governments, specifically Hazleton, have the right to pass laws dealing with illegal immigrants by punishing landlords and employers doing business with them.

The American Civil Liberties Union and several other advocacy groups sued the city in federal court on behalf of residents and community groups, arguing the ordinance infringed on the civil rights of Latinos and conflicted with federal immigration law. A nine-day trial was held in March at the William J. Nealon Federal Building in Scranton.

Although judges have ruled on illegal ordinances in other parts of the country, Munley’s would be the first following a full trial, giving it more precedent-setting power.

The decision will “most likely” be released early this afternoon, said John Garcia, spokesman for the Puerto Rican Defense and Education Fund, one of the groups suing the city.

“Our lawyers and all the clients are preparing for a decision to come (today),” he said.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta cut a family vacation short and planned a press conference in anticipation that Munley will issue the ruling today.

“We’ve waited a long time,” said Barletta, who plans to talk about the ruling at 4 p.m. today in the Hazleton City Council chambers. “Regardless of what the ruling is, it will be part of the history of Hazleton as a monumental decision in a case that the whole nation will be watching.”

Hazleton has been at the heart of that national debate since July 2006, when it passed the ordinance forbidding hiring or renting to illegal immigrants. The law was believed to be the first of its kind passed in the entire country. A separate ordinance, not challenged in the lawsuit, made English the official language. Hundreds of municipalities around the country — and at least two dozen in Northeastern Pennsylvania — passed or considered copycat laws.

“What I’ve been hearing in the months that we’ve been waiting is how many cities have been waiting for a decision,” Barletta said. “This isn’t just for Hazleton.”

The key component of the decision will be whether Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act “pre-empts” U.S. immigration laws by interfering with the federal government’s sole authority over immigration.

If Munley decides it does, it would stop many municipalities from going forward with their own illegal immigration ordinances put on hold while awaiting the Hazleton decision.

But, “if the judge gives the green light, you’re going to see these laws all across the country, and you’re going to see a whole lot more lawsuits,” ACLU attorney Witold “Vic” Walczak said.

“Right now, everybody’s watching what happens here in Hazleton,” said Joseph Romanoskey, a Larksville Borough councilman. “Whatever happens there, other communities will follow.”

Wilkes-Barre City Council President Bill Barrett said he’s had informal talks with City Solicitor Tim Henry about amending the rental ordinance to make it similar to Hazleton’s ordinance.

“If the decision is favorable toward Hazleton, then that might be something that we would like,” he said.

Attorneys involved said they were notified Wednesday afternoon that a decision was coming today.

Munley had previously indicated he would give the lawyers 48 hours’ notice when he reached a decision.

But Dr. Agapito Lopez, a leader in Hazleton’s Hispanic community who testified during the trial, said Munley opted not to give as much lead time for “security” reasons after his agreeing to give advance warning appeared in local newspapers.

The debate in Hazleton has drawn crowds of demonstrators to several rallies and public meetings in the past year, and the 48-hour window would have allowed for similar attention surrounding the decision, Lopez said.

“Apparently, (the two-days notice) was something that the press wasn’t supposed to know. He was going to make it only known to the lawyers,” Lopez said. “He was afraid for security measures that something would happen.”