Hazleton to file legal briefs in appeal by Jan. 22 (Standard-Speaker)

By L.A. TARONE
Staff Writer

Hazleton will file its legal briefs in its appeal of the Illegal Immigration Relief Act with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in Philadelphia by Jan. 22.

Initially they’d been due Dec. 26, but that was delayed to Jan. 9.

Attorney and law professor Kris Kobach, the immigration law expert for former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft who is representing the city, said he asked for a two-week extension for several reasons.

“There’ve been a bunch of new cases that support our arguments,” Kobach said. “The Arizona case is very favorable for Hazleton.”

Arizona enacted a law similar to Hazleton’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act. It requires all employers in the state to sign up with the federal Department of Homeland Security’s E-Verify program, an electronic verification system that used to be called the Basic Pilot Program. It matches job applicants’ names and Social Security numbers against government databases.

The law also empowers the state’s local district attorneys to investigate employers suspected of employing illegal aliens. Those found to have knowingly hired illegals will have their state business licenses suspended for 10 days; a second offense will result in permanent revocation of their licenses.

On Dec. 7, federal District Judge Neil Wake issued a ruling dismissing two lawsuits that sought to overturn the law. His decision was “without prejudice,” meaning plaintiffs could correct deficiencies in their pleadings and come back to court and refile the complaint. Thus far, they have not.

Kobach said the decision is good for Hazleton’s case.

“The judge rejected most of the arguments the plaintiffs made in the Hazleton case – and arguments in Judge (James M.) Munley’s decision,” Kobach said, referring to the 200-page ruling made in U.S. District Court in Scranton last July.

The other recent case involving illegal immigration laws Kobach referenced involved a similar law in Oklahoma. There, a judge ruled a number of plaintiffs who are identified only as “John Doe” or “Jane Doe” do not have standing in the case.

In Hazleton’s case, Munley ruled 10 John and Jane Does did have standing in the case and were allowed to testify by filing briefs.

“Both of those were really favorable decisions (for Hazleton) and they need to be incorporated into our briefs,” Kobach said.

Kobach said he also asked for the extension to wait for a decision on a motion he filed asking for a waiver of the page-limit rule on briefs.

“Briefs are usually limited to 30 pages,” Kobach said. “But Judge Munley wrote a 205-page decision. How can I answer that in 30 pages?”

But since there has been no ruling on the motion yet, Kobach said he needs the extra time if his motion is denied.

“If the ruling is against us, we’ll need time to edit a 100-page brief down to a 30-page brief,” he said.

Kobach is confident the city will win the overall case on appeal.

But Vic Walczak, lead attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, one of the plaintiffs in the case, is equally sure his side will prevail.

“We are confident that we have a good argument,” Walczak said “We thought Judge Munley wrote a sound, thoughtful opinion.”

Walczak said he wasn’t sure yet what his briefs would state. That depends on what the city states in its.

“The briefs aren’t due at the same time,” Walczak said. “The city files first, then we respond to it.”

The court will not hear any new testimony. It will decide the case on the briefs filed.

“They decide reviewing the record,” Walczak said. “They’re not allowed to take any new evidence.”

The losing side is expected to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.