Judge rules Hazleton’s ordinance on illegal immigrants is unconstitutional
In a ruling with national implications, a federal judge this afternoon struck down a controversial year-old ordinance in Hazleton designed to crack down on illegal immigrants in the Northeastern Pennsylvania city.
In a ruling with national implications, a federal judge this afternoon struck down a controversial year-old ordinance in Hazleton designed to crack down on illegal immigrants in the Northeastern Pennsylvania city.
In a 206-page ruling, U.S. District Judge James Munley found that Hazleton's ordinance that would have penalized city businesses that hire illegal immigrants and landlords who rent to them was unconstitutional because the federal government alone crafts and enforces immigration policies.
"The genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws," Munley 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."
City officials, led by the outspoken and popular mayor, Lou Barletta, argued that the ordinance was needed to curb the influx of illegal immigrants, which they blame for Hazleton's growing crime problem.
Soon after the ruling was issued, Barletta said that although he had not read all 206 pages, he nonetheless anticipated an appeal.
"Both sides knew this would not be the last day. Both sides pledged to go the distance," he said. "As Abraham Lincoln once said, this 'is a slip and not a fall.' "
The ACLU, on behalf of 11 plaintiffs, including four undocumented aliens who went by aliases, challenged the ordinance in federal court, insisting that city officials were using the Hispanic community as scapegoats for social ills.
"This decision should be a blaring red stoplight for local officials thinking of copying Hazleton's misguided and unconstitutional law," said Witold Walczak, a lawyer for the ACLU who is representing the plaintiffs.
Hazleton, a struggling former coal-mining town of 30,000, delayed enforcement of the ordinance pending the outcome of the legal challenge.
Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University's Beasley School of Law, called the decision a "knockout for the plaintiffs."
"They couldn't ask for anything more."
Even so, Spiro said it would not surprise him if an appeals court modified or even reversed the ruling.
"A lot of this is uncharted territory," he said. "In the context of failed immigration reform, an appeals court might be more amenable to upholding this sort of local law than the district court was."
The Hazleton ordinance became a flashpoint in a growing debate over the nation's ability to curb illegal immigrants. Today's ruling was eagerly anticipated by those on both sides of the bitter divide as well as by towns and cities across the nation that had followed Hazleton's lead and crafted their own similar local laws.
Spiro said the ruling would not have any direct bearing on such laws outside the district court's jurisdiction in Pennsylvania. But he said it could embolden challenges to other ordinances in that it "provides a template" for rulings elsewhere.