Struck down: Judge rejects city’s illegal immigration ordinance (Hazleton Standard-Speaker

By WADE MALCOLM
Staff Writer

A federal judge struck down the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Thursday, ruling Hazleton’s proposed crackdown on landlords and employers doing business with illegal immigrants is unconstitutional.

In a 206-page opinion, U.S. District Judge James M. Munley stated, “Federal law prohibits Hazleton from enforcing any of the provisions of its ordinance” aimed at expelling illegal immigrants.

“Whatever frustrations ... the city of Hazleton may feel about the current state of federal immigration enforcement, the nature of the political system in the United States prohibits the city from enacting ordinances that disrupt a carefully drawn federal statutory scheme,” Munley wrote.

The ruling comes about four months after a nine-day trial concluded in Scranton federal court and a little more than a year since city council passed the ordinance punishing businesses that hire and landlords who rent to illegal immigrants. A separate provision making English the official language was written into a different ordinance and dropped from the lawsuit.

Munley issued a previous court order putting Hazleton’s ordinance on hold since November. Thursday’s decision is expected to be appealed to Third Circuit U.S. Court in Philadelphia within the next few weeks.

“I’m very disappointed that Judge Munley has ruled against all legal residents of the city of Hazleton,” Barletta said during a press conference on the steps of city hall in front a horde of television cameras and reporters from publications throughout the country.

In his decision, Munley contended that all people must be protected regardless of their legality. The ordinance could harm legal residents of the community as well, he ruled.

“The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public,” he wrote. “Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community.”

Hundreds of the municipalities around the country — and at least two dozen in Northeastern Pennsylvania — have considered or enacted laws mimicking the Hazleton ordinance, believed to have been the first of its kind passed in the country.

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta proposed the ordinance in response to the high-profile May 10, 2006, murder of 29-year-old Derek Kichline, allegedly shot in the head by two illegal immigrants. Charges in the case were dropped earlier this month.

While many Hazleton residents applauded Barletta’s stance, much of the city’s large Latino population — estimated to be about 10,000 and growing — immediately reacted in protest. Some gathered on the steps of city hall the night the ordinance passed wearing shirts reading, “I’m Hispanic, not a criminal.”

The American Civil Liberties Union and other advocacy groups challenged the ordinance in federal court on behalf of several residents and community groups, arguing it would lead to civil rights violations against Latinos and conflict with the federal government’s sole authority to regulate immigration.

During the trial in March, Barletta, who was catapulted to nationally prominence when he proposed the ordinance in June 2006, testified that his city is besieged by gangs, graffiti and crime because of illegal immigrants.

Hazleton is at least the seventh city in the country to lose a case over a local ordinance targeting illegal immigrants, the plaintiffs’ attorneys said. It is the first to be struck down following a full trial.

“We believe this is an unmistakable message to other cities and localities ... that enacting this ordinance raises very serious constitutional issues,” said Anthony Romero, executive director of the ACLU.

In the press conference at city hall, Barletta and city attorney Kris Kobach blasted the ruling, calling Munley a judicial “activist.” Munley, a former Democratic Lackawanna County judge and Clinton appointee to federal court, was randomly assigned to the case by a computer system.

“This decision is extraordinary, this decision is activist and it is a decision that will not stand up on appeal — nor is it entirely unexpected,” Kobach said.

Kobach attacked Munley’s decision on several fronts, saying the city expected “an uphill climb” ever since the judge ruled several anonymous plaintiffs, who are illegal immigrants, did not have to testify during the trial.

The judge also wrote that immigration should only be enforced at the border and that local immigration laws could affect relationships with other countries, issues ripe for appeal, Kobach said.

“It is clear the judge has bent over backwards to find fault with the city’s ordinance,” Kobach said.

Barletta’s opponents, however, had a vastly different view of Munley’s legal analysis.

“It is a first-rate opinion,” said attorney Foster Maer, of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, one of the groups challenging the law. “One of the best I’ve ever seen.”