The fight's not over (Allentown Morning Call)

By Matt Birkbeck
Of The Morning Call

A federal judge struck down Hazleton's illegal-immigration ordinance Thursday, calling it unconstitutional in a groundbreaking decision that will reverberate throughout the nation and affect more than 100 other communities considering similar laws.

U.S. District Judge James M. Munley, in a 206-page ruling, said the ordinance violates due process protections and the Supremacy Clause, which acknowledges federal law as the supreme law of the land.

''Even if federal law did not conflict with Hazleton's measures, the city could not enact an ordinance that violates rights the Constitution guarantees to every person in the United States, whether legal resident or not,'' Munley wrote.

Mayor Lou Barletta, who gained national attention for his passionate support of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act, said the city will appeal the decision to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia and, if necessary, to the U.S. Supreme Court.

''We are not going to stop fighting for the quality of life that we value here in Hazleton,'' Barletta said. ''I realize today that we're not only fighting for Hazleton any longer, we're fighting for cities all across the country.''

The ordinance would have imposed heavy fines on landlords who rent to illegal immigrants and businesses that hire them. Barletta introduced it in June 2006 after several violent crimes he attributed to illegal immigrants who followed thousands of Hispanics to Hazleton, which has more than 30,000 residents.

Several residents, along with the American Civil Liberties Union and the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, filed suit in August 2006, claiming the ordinance was misguided, unconstitutional and undemocratic.

Foster Maer, an attorney with the Puerto Rican Legal Defense Fund, called the decision ''historical. … It delivered a body blow to the efforts by localities to legislate immigration.''

Munley issued a temporary restraining order in October 2006 preventing the city from putting the ordinance into effect, then heard testimony in March during a nine-day trial in Scranton that drew national interest.

In his decision, Munley ruled that the ordinance disrupts a ''well-established federal scheme for regulating the presence and employment of immigrants in the United States,'' and that penalizing landlords, tenants, employers and employees without providing procedural protections for due process is unconstitutional.

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

''The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. … 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.''

Peter J. Spiro, a professor at Temple University Beasley School of Law in Philadelphia, called the ruling a ''big win'' for the plaintiffs. ''They really couldn't have asked for much more from the district court,'' he said.

Still, Spiro said he would ''not be at all surprised'' if the decision were modified or reversed on appeal.

''This is a very unsettled area,'' he said. ''In the wake of failure of [immigration reform in Congress], I think the courts would be more likely to give jurisdictions a little more leeway to regulate matters related to immigration.''

Over the past three years, Congress has grappled with -- but failed to pass -- comprehensive immigration measures dealing with the U.S.-Mexican border and the estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the country.

Municipal officials throughout the country, many of whom have used Hazleton's ordinance as a model for their own anti-immigration laws, had been awaiting Munley's decision.

Among them is Gary Greer, city manager of Farmers Branch, Texas, which passed a law similar to Hazleton's last year, only to see a judge block it from taking effect last month.

Greer said the ruling is a setback for other municipalities looking to crack down on illegal immigrants, but not unexpected given how ''groundbreaking'' the ordinance is.

''I'm not discouraged and I'm not surprised,'' Greer said. ''I think everyone knew in our process that we had an uphill battle. I think until it is completely over, we will always be blazing a trail in challenging the norm.''

In Pennsylvania alone, more than 30 municipalities have at least discussed following Hazleton's lead.

''We'll see what happens on appeal,'' said Lebanon Mayor Robert Anspach, whose city of 25,000 has yet to introduce a measure but whose officials are kicking around the idea. ''The courts went the wrong direction on this. It is a question of how does a community handle their housing and crime issues while the federal government has been forsaking us.''

The decision drew expected mixed reactions in Hazleton, but did not produce any public demonstrations or celebrations. Instead, particularly for the city's Hispanic residents, there was a sense of relief that the worst was over and residents could get on with their lives.

''I don't know if people liked me or didn't like me. I didn't know if they were going to take me away or let me stay,'' said Andrea Rivera, owner of Andrew Multi Services on Wyoming Street. ''Thank God we won this decision. Hopefully now we'll have some peace.''