IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

D

I L E FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMAIi'

OCT 1 5 2007

National Coalition of Latino Clergy, Inc., CONLAMIC - OKLAHOMA, Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular Mexico Lindo Restaurants John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three, Jane Doe Four, John Doe Five, John Doe 6, et al.

Phil
u.s.

LOo\SmTRbaICrdTi,COCUI8RrTk

Plaintiffs, v. Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma and

CVNO.
07 CV - 5 9 4 JHP FHM

Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma
Defendants.

COMPLAINT

For their Complaint against the Honorable Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma, and the Honorable Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, (the "State"), Plaintiffs National Coalition of Latino Clergy, Inc. (CONLAMIC), CONLAMIC- Oklahoma, Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three, Jane Doe Four, et ai., allege as follows:

SUMMARY
1. Plaintiffs bring this case to uphold and to prevent violations of the Constitution of the United States, the laws of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.

2. On or about May 8, 2007 the Honorable Brad Henry, the Governor of Oklahoma, signed into law HB 1804, a bill passed by the Oklahoma Legislature on or about May 1, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "HB 1804"). HB 1804 is attached as Exhibit "A".
3. HB 1804 violates the United States and Oklahoma constitutions and federal law. Specifically, HB 1804 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; Plaintiffs' due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; equal protection rights under the United States Constitution; rights against self-incrimination under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; Contracts Clause of the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; separation of powers doctrine of the Oklahoma Constitution; and right to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
4. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 violate Plaintiffs' due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; equal protection rights under the United States Constitution; and 42 U.S.c. § 1981.
5. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to a declaratory judgment and a preliminary and permanent injunction to declare HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 unconstitutional

and illegal and to enjoin the Governor and the Attorney General from enforcing HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Plaintiff National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, (CONLAMIC-USA), is a non profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal place of business located in Washington, D.C.
7. Plaintiff CONLAMIC Oklahoma, is a branch of CONLAMIC - USA. 8. Plaintiff Church Eficaz is a non-profit, 501(c)(3) tax exempt church,
authorized to act as a church under federal law and the laws of Oklahoma.
9. Plaintiff Church Eficaz' primary function is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before the passage of HB 1804 Church Eficaz had approximately 200 members. Its membership has now dwindled to approximately 100 members, as result of the fear caused by HB 1804's passage they assume that many church members are undocumented.
10. Plaintiff Church Eficaz does not reqUIre its members to prove their citizenship, residency or other immigration status as a condition of membership. HB 1804 has created great hostility towards the Latino community in Oklahoma and therefore adversely affects the work Church

Eficaz performs in Oklahoma and for Oklahoma residents.
11. Church Eficaz' membership and constituency (herein, collectively "members") includes individuals - many but not all of whom are Latino who reside and who are employed in and around Tulsa, some of whom have school-aged children. The membership includes persons who have Spanish as their native tongue with a limited proficiency in English.
12. Church Eficaz intends to continue to provide services to all its church members, including but not limited to transporting them to different locations. Church Eficaz fears they will be subject to numerous felonies if they continue to transport individuals, who happen to be undocumented, after November 1, 2007. Church Eficaz does not plan to alter the services they provide after November 1, 2007.
13. The interests Church Eficaz seeks to protect through this action are germane to its purpose, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested herein require the personal participation of Church Eficaz' members.
14. Plaintiff Church Eficaz' pastor, Julian Rodriguez, has ministered to hundreds of church members for over nine years. Since passage of HB 1804, he has visited the jails and found numerous instances of individuals who believed they were stopped by local Oklahoma police because they

appeared "Hispanic" or otherwise "foreign".
15. Pastor Julian has ministered in the jails for over four months and has never seen as many detained Hispanic immigrants as he has seen after passage of HB 1804. Pastor Julian believes that the local Oklahoma police have been emboldened by the language of HB 1804, especially in light of statements made by he bill's author, Oklahoma State Rep. Randy Terrill "It would be just fine with me if we exported all illegal aliens to the surrounding states." See enclosed Exhibit "B", September 26, 2007 USA Today newspaper article.
16. Such statement presumes that the State of Oklahoma has the right to "export" (sic) aliens to other states. Not only is it a federal function to deport, or otherwise regulate immigration, but contrary to Rep. Terrill's wishes, they cannot be deported or "exported" to other surrounding states, only to their country of origin.
17. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular' primary function is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before the passage ofHB 1804 Church Piedra Angular had approximately 400 members. It has lost at least 40 members as a result of the fear caused by HB 1804's passage. Leaders of Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular assume that many church members are undocumented.
18. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular does not require its members to prove their

citizenship, residency or other immigration status as a condition of membership. HB 1804 has created great hostility towards the Latino community in Oklahoma and therefore adversely affects the work Church Piedra Angular performs in Oklahoma and for Oklahoma residents.
19. Church Piedra Angular's membership and constituency (herein, collectively "members") includes individuals - many but not all of whom are Latino - who reside and who are employed in and around Tulsa, some of whom have school-aged children. The membership includes persons who have Spanish as their native tongue with a limited proficiency in English.
20. Church Piedra Angular intends to continue to provide services to all its church members, including but not limited to transporting them to different locations. Church Piedra Angular fears they will be subject to numerous felonies if they continue to transport individuals, who happen to be undocumented, after November 1, 2007. Church Piedra Angular does not plan to alter the services they provide after November 1, 2007.
21. The interests Church Piedra Angular seeks to protect through this action are germane to its purpose, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested herein require the personal participation of Church Piedra Angular' members.

22. Plaintiffs Church Eficaz and Church, Piedra Angular Church are collectively referred to herein as "Plaintiff Churches."
23. Plaintiff Jose Ramirez is a resident of Oklahoma. Plaintiff is the representative of Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants there are (5) Mexico Lindo Restaurants in Oklahoma.
24. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurant opened its business in approximately the year 2000.
25. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurant has lost significant revenue since the announcement of HB 1804. Plaintiff Ramirez estimates that he has lost approximately 40% of his business as a result of HB 1804. HB 1804 has negatively affected Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants' businesses and hundreds of others in Oklahoma. The loss in revenue and profit resulting from the passage of HB 1804 might force Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants to close their business. Due to the loss of business income, Plaintiffs fear they will be unable to maintain their businesses open.
26. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants has hired individuals to work in their business. If Plaintiff does not participate in the "federal status verification system" he will not have access to state contracts according to HB 1804. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants is aware that federal law does not require a business to participate in the federal status verification system.

Moreover the term "federal status verification system" as adopted by HB 1804, does not clarify which particular voluntary federal program plaintiff is supposed to follow. There are numerous status verification systems much as the basic pilot program, and the social security verification system. There are voluntary and not required by federal law. Imposing this new burden on Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants' business is burdensome and due to its vagueness he does not know what it means exactly.
27. If Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurant fires an employee for theft or any other legitimate reason, he will be subject to a claim by the fired employee under § 7 of HB 1804 if one of his employees happens to be undocumented. Plaintiff would be subject to the lawsuit even if they have properly filled out form 1-9 of federal forms and later find that one of their employees are undocumented. Plaintiff has fully complied with Federal law in his hiring practices.
28. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants, as of November 1,2007, will continue to follow federal immigration and tax law but will require independent contractors to show proof of lawful status, unless otherwise ordered by this court.
29. Plaintiff Mexico Lindo will hereby be referred to as "Employer Plaintiff'. Unless HB 1804 is permanently enjoined and declared invalid, Plaintiffs

will continue to lose income and/or incur significant monetary fines.
30. Plaintiff John Doe One is a resident of Oklahoma. He has lived in Oklahoma for over 5 years with his wife and two school-age children. He has 2 U.S. Citizen Children. He is originally from Mexico. Plaintiff John Doe One will not sign a document, required by Section 8 of HB 1804, attesting to his lawful status, as this violates his right against selfincrimination.
31. Plaintiff John Doe 2 is a resident of Oklahoma. He has lived in Oklahoma for over 12 years with his wife and one child. He is originally from Mexico.
32. Plaintiff John Doe 2 and his wife are undocumented. They have a 16-yearold child that has been studying in Oklahoma schools since the age of three. She first started in the "Head Start Program" and has been a model student for over 10 years.
33. Plaintiff John Doe 3 and Plaintiff Jane Doe 4 are husband and wife. They are residents of Oklahoma. They have lived in Oklahoma for over five years. They are originally from Mexico.
34. Plaintiff John Doe 3 and his wife Plaintiff Jane Doe 4 are undocumented.
35. Plaintiff John Doe 3 applied for a driver's license with the State of Oklahoma and the license was denied. Plaintiff was not given any due

process opportunities to contest the denial of his license. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is otherwise qualified to hold an Oklhoma driver's license except for his undocumented status.
36. Plaintiff John Doe 5 is undocumented and has an Oklahoma driver's license. Plaintiff John Doe believes HB 1804 will cause him to lose his driver's license.
37. Plaintiff John Doe 6 is currently incarcerated with criminal and immigration charges and believes he has been denied bail because HB 1804 unlawfully denies bail to foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted.
38. Plaintiffs John Does 1,2,3, and 4 reasonably fear that, if HB 1804 is enforced, they will be evicted from their homes as the landlord may not want to rent to them since renting an apartment or house may be considered "harboring" an "undocumented person" and thus subject the landlord to a possible felony.
39. Plaintiffs John Doe 1,2,3,5 and 6, Jane Doe 4, and Portillo are collectively referred to herein as "Individual Plaintiffs."
40. The Individual Plaintiffs, as of November 1, 2007, will not require proof of documentation from those who visit their homes and/or ride in their vehicles. The Individual Plaintiffs are undocumented but otherwise qualify

as Oklahoma residents, to obtain a driver's license.
41. Several plaintiffs are eligible for public benefits under Section 8 of HB 1804.
42. The State of Oklahoma is in possession of information relating to the unlawful status of several plaintiffs, which would otherwise be confidential under state law.
43. The Individual Plaintiffs, plaintiff employers, and plaintiff churches have suffered or will suffer as a result of HB 1804's unconstitutional and otherwise illegal provisions as set out in counts 1 thru 15 infra.
44. Defendant Oklahoma is a State of the United States existing pursuant to law, with its principal place of business and capitol located at 2300 N. Lincoln Boulevard Oklahoma City, OK .
45. At all relevant times Oklahoma acted through it's duly authorized agents. Governor Brad Henry, Attorney General W.A. Drew Edmondson, as well as those charged with applying and enforcing Oklahoma law.
46. At all times alleged herein, Oklahoma officials, employees and agents were acting under color of state law.
47. Defendant Brad Henry is the Governor of the State of Oklahoma (the "Governor"). He is named herein as a Defendant in his capacity as

Governor.
48. Defendant Drew Edmonson is the Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma (the "Attorney General"). He is named herein as a Defendant in his capacity as Attorney General.
49. Each Plaintiff and the members and/or shareholders of each Plaintiff are affected by the actions of the State of Oklahoma in enacting into law HB 1804.
50. Each Plaintiff has standing to sue in this action.
51. The Supremacy Clause, due process, Contracts Clause, right against selfincrimination and equal protection claims of Plaintiffs arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States. As a result, Plaintiffs have a right to sue arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
52. This Court has jurisdiction over the Supremacy Clause, due process, Contracts Clause, right against self-incrimination and equal protection claims of Plaintiffs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because they arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
53. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant 0 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
54. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.c. § 1391(b).

55. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, the Court may issue a declaratory judgment and further necessary or proper relief.
ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
56. On or about May 8, 2007, the Honorable Brad Henry, the Governor of Oklahoma, signed into law HB 1804, a bill passed by the Oklahoma Legislature on or about May 1, 2007, 2007.
57. HB 1804 creates a state felony for any person who, "knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact" of an alien's illegal status, transports, harbors, or conceals any undocumented immigrant.
58. HB 1804 places new responsibilities on certain agencIes that issue identification documents. The bill provides that federal, state, and local government agencies, and in some cases public schools or state or private educational institutions, shall only issue identification documents to US citizens, legal permanent residents, or other immigrants with lawful status demonstrated by specified "valid documentary evidence." Furthermore, HB 1804 states that if the Department of Public Safety ("DPS") is notified by a local, state, or a federal government agency indicating reasonable suspicion that an individual is unlawfully present, then DPS may not issue even a renewed, duplicated or reissued driver's license without verifying that individual's legal status by specified "valid documentary evidence."

59. HB 1804 requires that jail authorities determine the immigration status of persons charged with a felony or with driving under the influence. The bill states that "[i]f verification of lawful status cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner, verification shall be made within forty-eight (48) hours through a query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States Department of Homeland Security or other office or agency designated for that purpose by the United States Department of Homeland Security"; and in the event that legal status is not verified, the bill states that the officer must report the inmate to the Department of Homeland Security. It further provides that a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted is presumed to be a flight risk for bond purposes.
60. HB 1804 will require public employers to register with and utilize a Status Verification System to determine the federal employment authorization status of all new employees. It will also extend the requirement to participate in the Status Verification System to entities which contract or subcontract with a public employer for the physical performance of services within the State of Oklahoma. The bill will make it a discriminatory practice for an employer to discharge a United States citizen or permanent resident alien while retaining an unauthorized alien in certain circumstances.

61. HB 1804 will deny federal, state or local public benefits to persons over the age of fourteen who are unable to verify their lawful status.
62. HB 1804 will require that, in certain circumstances, contracting entities withhold a contractor's state income tax at the maximum rate if the contractor fails to verify employment authorization.
63. HB 1804 directs the Attorney General to negotiate, and the Governor and Attorney General to sign, a memorandum of understanding between the State of Oklahoma and the Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security concerning, among other things, the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The bill prohibits agencies and local authorities from preventing the communication of information regarding an individual's unlawful status to the Department of Homeland Security.
64. HB 1804 will restrict the ability of undocumented aliens to obtain in-state tuition benefits for post-secondary education.
65. HB 1804 in essence creates a new state mechanism to interpret and enforce federal immigration law, which is prohibited by the United States Constituti on.
66. Although the law is not to take effect until November 1, 2007, it has already been the subject of countless media reports in both the English and Spanish-speaking press, and has served as a catalyst for increased

enforcement efforts by local and state authorities as well as numerous cases of racial profiling.
67. The law's increasing notoriety in many Hispanic communities has scared families into keeping their children home from school. This particular fear was caused by media coverage of certain legislators' initial attempt unconstitutionally to restrict access to public schools to only those children with US citizenship, lawful permanent residency or other type of legal status. After the ill-informed legislators were made aware that Supreme Court case law clearly protects the rights of all children to attend elementary through high school, regardless of their immigration status, this provision was removed from the fina1 bill. See P1yler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Nevertheless, the harm had been done, as immigrant parents throughout the state have decided not to send their children to school. (See Statistics)
68. On September 5, 2007, five members of the Oklahoma House of Representatives addressed a letter to the Attorney General requesting his opinion on a number of issues relating to HB 1804 and questioning the constitutionality of HB 1804. The letter is attached as Exhibit "C", and incorporated herein by reference.
69. The city of Hazelton, Pennsylvania's recent attempt to also regulate and

interpret federal immigration law was soundly rebuffed by a federal district court. See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007). Although many of the issues in the case at bar are different than those in Lozano, and will be subsequently delineated throughout the complaint, the underlying premise applies to both matters, and numerous attempts by municipalities and states throughout the country to create new immigration categories - such attempts are pre-empted by the Supremacy Clause. See ego LULACv. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 (C.D. CaL 1995).
70. Conflicts with Federal Law's Benefit Eligibility Requirements. HB 1804 requires state and local agencies to verify the lawful presence of individuals over the age of 14 who apply for federal, state or local public benefits. It requires applicants to verify that they are both a "qualified" alien and "lawfully present" in the U.S. This requirement fails to track federal law, which allows additional groups of immigrants to secure such benefits, and which doesn't utilize age 14 for benefits eligibility verification purposes.
71. Requires participation in a "Status Verification System," the most likely component ofwhich is the Basic Pilot Program. Federal law does not require participation in any such program. Federal immigration law expressly regulates the employment and hiring of unauthorized workers and the Basic Pilot program is not required under current federal law. State bills that require the use of the Basic Pilot Program therefore are preempted by federal

law because they attempt to regulate immigration and legislate in a field that has been occupied by the federal government.
72. The bill also creates a new private cause of action against an employer for any U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who is discharged and can show that on the same day of the discharge the employer employed an unauthorized worker. This provision would protect an employee who was terminated for cause and would reward him or her for the criminal acts that caused the termination, such as embezzlement, theft, arson or assault on a fellow employee.
73. The new cause of action will cause turmoil. Discharged employees and their lawyers will have the right to confidential employee records to try to prove that an undocumented alien was retained.
74. Former employees terminated for cause will be likely to sue their former employers under the new cause of action for knowingly retaining an unauthorized alien.
75. The new cause of action is likely to lead to discrimination against potential employees who appear to be of foreign national origin.
76. The new cause of action is based upon strict liability and does not require intent, knowledge, recklessness, or even a negligent state of mind.

77. In order to avoid liability under the new cause of action, an employer who does not participate in a Status Verification System must either retain all employees, regardless of their misconduct, or discharge all employees in the event that, despite the employer's best efforts to verify employment authorization, one employee might be an undocumented alien.
78. Require State Determinations Regarding Compliance with Federal Immigration Law. The bill makes sheltering or moving an immigrant who may have entered or remained in the U.S. while undocumented a state crime. This requires a state determination that an individual entered the U.S. in violation ofJederal immigration law. The federal government, not the states, has this power. The state determination could conflict with the way that the federal government interprets immigration law or with other foreign policy considerations. The bill also requires local officials to inquire about the immigration status of persons charged with certain offenses and to verify that they have been lawfully admitted to the United States. To the extent that the state is making the determination regarding lawful status, the provision is problematic. The bill uses the verification or absence of verification of citizenship status in determining whether to issue a bond. A U.S. citizen who lacks documents, and is unlikely to appear in a federal immigration database, for example, would be presumed to be a flight risk.

, '
79. 47 O.S. § 6-103(A)(9) provides that driver licenses may not be issued to undocumented aliens.
80. 47 O.S. § 6-106(B)(10) provides that applicants for a driver license must indicate whether they are prohibited by 47 O.S. § 6-103(A)(9).
81. 47 O.S. § 6-114(A) prohibits the issuance of a replacement license to undocumented aliens.
82. 47 O.S. § 6-115(A) and (D) provide that the an alien's driver license expires at the expiration of his or her documentation, and that a renewed license will only be valid until the expiration of his or her documentation.
83. 47 O.S. § 6-122 provides that undocumented aliens may not renew their driver licenses by mail.
84. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief. They have a strong likelihood of success on the merits and will suffer irreparable harm if HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not enjoined and are enforced against plaintiffs, and other individuals, organizations, and employers in Oklahoma, including Plaintiffs.
85. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm as a result of the potential enforcement of HB 1804 and have suffered irreparable harm as a result of the enforcement of 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-

, ,
115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
86. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND PRE-
EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW
87. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
88. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
89. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law may expressly or implicitly pre-empt state and local laws.
90. In accordance with its exclusive power over matters of immigration, the U.S. Congress has adopted, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.c. § 1101 et seq., a comprehensive system of laws, regulations,

, '
and procedures and has created administrative agencies that determine, subject to judicial review, whether and under what conditions an individual may enter, stay in, and work in the U.S. and a system of civil and criminal penalties for those violating the law, including employers who knowingly employ unauthorized aliens.
91. When enacting the Immigration Reform and Control Act, Congress expressly pre-empted state and local laws. The Immigration Reform and Control Act provides, in part, as follows: "[Federal law] pre-empts any state or local law imposing similar criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens." [8 U.S.Co § 1324a (h) (2)].
92. Title 8, Section 1188(h)(2) explicitly provides that portions of the same title "preempt any State or local law regulating admissibility of nonimmigrant workers."
93. The immigration laws, procedures, and policies created by the federal government regulate immigration and confer rights in a careful balance reflecting the national interest.
94. Congress carefully balanced the requirements and penalties in federal immigration law with consideration of the tension that immigration compliance and sanctions might cause relating to race, national origin, and

, .
citizenship discrimination.
95. The Constitution bars the State from altering or obstructing the federal government's carefully crafted comprehensive immigration regime.
96. HB 1804 threatens the uniformity and primacy of the federal immigration system and conflicts with federal immigration law.
97. HB 1804 stands as an obstacle to the uniform enforcement and application of federal immigration laws and the comprehensive regime created by Congress.
98. Section 3 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation and because it requires persons other than those empowered by federal law and who have no particular knowledge or training in the area to assess the immigration status of other persons.
99. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation and because it requires persons other than those empowered by federal law and who have no particular knowledge or training in the area to assess the immigration status of other persons. Section 4 also purports to regulate federal government agencies in a manner which will interfere with the government's ability to carry out its federal function.

, '
100. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 D.S. § 171.2, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation and because the detention it may authorize exceeds that authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.
101. Section 7 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 22 D.S. §1313, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation.
102. The licensing exception to the preemption clause contained in 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(h)(2) was designed and intended to allow state governments to take action against the business license for employers "found to have violated the sanctions provision" of 8 U.S.c. § 1324a---essentially only after the employer had been found by the federal government to have violated the federal law.
103. The licensing exception to the preemption clause in 8 U.S.c. § 1324a(h)(2) does not allow states to pass laws prohibiting the employment of unauthorized aliens, or the ability to define who actually are unauthorized aliens.
104. The federal government has enacted broad, comprehensive immigration laws that govern who is eligible to work in the United States and that govern the process by which employers must verify the eligibility of job applicants.

, '
105. The federal government has occupied the field of immigration regulation through the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), including occupying the field relating to prohibiting the employment of unauthorized workers and verifying the eligibility ofjob applicants.
106. Federal law governs the documents that employers must accept to make employment decisions regarding whether persons are authorized to work in this country.
107. Federal law prohibits employers from conducting any further investigation or taking any steps other than reviewing the documents that employees have the right, under federal law, to present to an employer
108. Once an employee has satisfied the verification requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, employers are barred by federal law from seeking additional information.
109. Federal law prohibits employers from making additional inquiries, conducting additional investigations, or taking additional steps to determine an applicant's or employee's eligibility to work in this country other than having examined the original documents that the employee elected to present and, if the employer voluntarily enters into an agreement, to utilize the Basic Pilot Program.

· .
110. The federal government has failed to issue tamper-proof and forgery-proof forms of identification to persons that employers may rely upon to confirm with accuracy and reliability the identity of a person or the person's eligibility to work in the United States.
111. The State of Oklahoma has failed to issue tamper-proof and forgery-proof documents establishing the identity of residents of the State of Oklahoma.
112. Federal immigration law and federal employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from taking action to refuse to hire or discharge employees based upon their citizenship, national origin, race, color or other classifications protected by law.
113. HB 1804 imposes penalties on employers for state regulated immigration enforcement measures beyond and different than what the federal government requires.
114. Subsection C of section 7, which provides that it is a discriminatory practice to discharge a United States citizen or permanent resident alien employee while retaining an unauthorized alien employee under certain circumstances, is preempted by IRCA. It is inconsistent with the uniform enforcement of federal immigration law and Congress has already acted, through IRCA, to occupy the field regarding controlling the employment of aliens.

Ii

I

, ,

115. The federal government does not require employers to use the Employment Eligibility Verification System (Basic Pilot Program). It is a strictly voluntary program, except in the few cases where the government requires employers that violated the employment verification laws to use the Basic Pilot Program as part of a settlement with the federal government.

116. The fact that the federal government does not require employers to use the Basic Pilot Program evidences the federal intent that the Basic Pilot Program remain voluntary and that employers are not to be required to use the Basic Pilot Program.

117. The State of Oklahoma does not have the authority to require employers that do business with the State of Oklahoma to use the Basic Pilot Program, which is the component of the "Status Verification System" most likely to be used, and its attempt to do so is preempted by federal law.

118. HB 1804 will place burdens on the Executive Branch of the federal government including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration, that will impede the functions of those agencies.

119. By requiring that every employer use a "Status Verification System" which is most likely to involve the Basic Pilot Program, HB 1804 places an impermissible burden on the Executive Branch of the federal government,

, '
including the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security, who currently do not have the resources to successfully absorb hundreds of Oklahoma users into the Basic Pilot Program, which currently has approximately 17,000 companies enrolled and only half that many that actively use the program.
120. Section 7 also violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The strict liability Section 7 seeks to impose upon employers is inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does not impose strict liability for employment discrimination.
121. Section 8 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation and because it purports to regulate the provision of federal public benefits in a manner which will interfere with the government's ability to carry out its federal function. By creating an exception for certain programs "in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the United States Attorney General after consultation with [certain] appropriate federal agencies and departments[,]" Section 8 also purports to regulate discretionary acts of the Attorney General in such a way as to interfere with the government's ability to carry out its federal function.

, '
122. Section 9 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 68 O.S. § 2385.32, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation; specifically, it penalizes contracting entities who have hired independent contractors which have failed to provide "documentation" of "employment authorization," while 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1) and (4) make it illegal only to knowingly hire an unauthorized worker through contract, but do not require contracting entities to seek any documentation.
123. The bill requires employers to withhold income tax at the top marginal income tax rate from the compensation of an independent contractor if the contractor fails to provide "documentation to verify the independent contractor's employment authorization ...." Employers who fail to do so are subject to a penalty equal to the amount they should have withheld under this bill, unless the employer is exempt from withholding by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursuant to IRS Form 8233.
124. For purposes of federal tax compliance, the IRS distinguishes between "resident aliens" and "nonresident aliens," which is based on whether the individual meets either the "green card test" or "substantial presence test". Form 8233 only applies to nonresident aliens and is, therefore, most likely inapplicable here.

•

I I

j f

125. The SSA has estimated that 17.8 million of its records contain discrepancies related to name, date of birth, or citizenship status. The bill's provsision is likely to cause confusion among employers where the state is requiring it to do something that conflicts with the IRS guidance.

126. Section 10 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by federal legislation, and because, by directing the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the State of Oklahoma, it also purports to regulate the discretionary acts officers of the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security in such a way as to interfere with the government's ability to carry out its federal function.

127. Section 11 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 70 O.S. § 3242.2, and section 13, which will amend 70 O.S. § 3242, violate the Supremacy Clause because they are preempted by federal legislation, and because they require persons other than those empowered by federal law and who have no particular knowledge or training in the area to assess the immigration status of other persons.

128. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 IS unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law.

•

I I

I I

129. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE TO
VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH

130. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

131. HB 1804 is void for vagueness because persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

132. HB 1804 is void for overbreadth because it reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.

133. Association, religious exercise, travel, education of one's children as one chooses, contract, pursuit of livelihood, working for a living and enjoyment of property are constitutionally protected conduct.

134. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes transporting, movmg or attempting to transport an undocumented alien "in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in

,

t J

j I

the United States.

135. Section 3 is also unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes concealing, harboring or sheltering an undocumented alien from detection.

136. The state-of-mind elements of knowledge or reckless disregard contained in Section 3 apply only to a defendant's state of mind with regard to the unlawful presence of an alien; these elements do not apply with regard to the acts of transporting, moving or attempting to transport, or to the acts of concealing, harboring, or sheltering from detection.

137. Section 3 is unconstitutionally vague because if fails to specify what documentation or proof on the part of the alien would suffice to prevent a person transporting, moving, attempting to transport, concealing, harboring, or sheltering the alien from doing these activities with knowledge or reckless disregard for the alien's unlawful presence.

138. Section 3 could be construed to forbid activities including but not limited to permitting a person to ride in one's vehicle or enter onto one's property as a house guest, religious worshiper or tenant, unless one knows that the person is lawfully present in the United States. This section of HB 1804 is thus unconstitutionally overbroad because it reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct including but not limited to association,

•

,I

I I

religious exerCIse, travel, education of one's children as one chooses, contract, pursuit of livelihood, working for a living and enjoyment of property.

139. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify what documents or proof are needed in order to "determine the citizenship status" or "lawful immigration status" of a prisoner or "verify that the prisoner has been lawfully admitted to the United States ...."

140. Section 5 is also unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify whether, in the event that "verification of lawful status cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner," the prisoner must remain incarcerated for the specified 48 hours within which verification must be made.

141. The vague and overbroad language of HB 1804 violates the due process rights of Plaintiffs.

142. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the due process clause of the U.S. Constitution on account of vagueness and overbreadth.

143. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or

,

~'

! I

implement HB 1804.

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
DUE TO VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH

144. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

145. For the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of due process under the U.S. Constitution due to vagueness, HB 1804 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.

146. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution on account of vagueness and overbreadth.

147. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION

148. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the

•

I, ,

1 I

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

149. Under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state and local governments are prohibited from arbitrarily and capriciously depriving a person of a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

150. Corporations, including Plaintiffs _ and their members and/or shareholders, are persons entitled to fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

151. Undocumented aliens, including Plaintiffs, are persons entitled to fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

152. Plaintiffs have fundamental rights to associate with whomever Plaintiffs choose, to travel, to contract, to pursue a livelihood, to work for a living, to liberty, to life, to property and to privacy.

153. Section 3 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to associate with whomever Plaintiffs choose to associate because it in effect prohibits people from permitting the presence of undocumented aliens in their vehicles or on their property.

154. Section 3 infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to travel because it prohibits people from transporting, moving or attempting to transport undocumented aliens, or from concealing, harboring or sheltering them on

,

iff I

"any ... means of transportation ...." This provision will have a chilling effect on the willingness of individuals and common carriers to transport undocumented aliens, and will thus in effect drastically restrict the freedom of undocumented aliens to travel.

155. Section 3 infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to contract because it will have a chilling effect on the ability of undocumented aliens to rent or lease property and to purchase tickets on common carriers.

156. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to travel because it will prevent undocumented aliens from obtaining driver licenses and therefore from driving motor vehicles without fear of prosecution.

157. Section 4 is not reasonably related to any legitimate state objective because it is likely to encourage undocumented aliens to drive without licenses. The provision will therefore contribute to reckless driving, driving under the influence and disregard of the rules of traffic, because penalties like suspension and revocation of driver licenses will no longer have any conceivable effect on undocumented aliens who will no longer be able to obtain driver licenses in the first place. The bill will thus increase the "lawlessness" decried its section 2.

158. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, infringes

•

I t

I

(

on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to liberty because it could be interpreted to mandate incarceration of a person for up to 48 hours simply because he or she is unable to verify "lawful status."

159. Section 7 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 25 O.S. § 1313, infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental rights to property, to contract, to pursue a livelihood and to work for a living.

160. Section 8 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71 infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to life because it drastically impedes the access of undocumented aliens to health care. While it pennits the receipt of public benefits for "emergency medical contition[s]," it creates an exception for organ transplants. Often people in need of health care do not know whether their medical condition is an "emergency" or not; the requirement that an alien sign an affidavit under penalty of peIjury in order to obtain public benefits for health care will present many undocumented aliens with the catch-22 of forgoing the public benefits necessary to obtain medical care for possible emergency conditions, or facing prosecution for making out a false affidavit. The provision denies public benefits which would enable aliens to receive life-saving organ transplants. The requirement that applicants for public benefits verify their presence may prevent undocumented aliens from even seeking medical care for possible emergency conditions.

,

I I

r ~

161. Section 9 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 68 a.s. § 2385.32,
infringes on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to contract, to pursue a livelihood, to work for a living, and to property.

162. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 a.s. § 20j, infringes
on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to privacy because it prevents any restriction on, and effectively mandates, the disclosure of information regarding citizenship and immigration status, and contains no exception for personal information including medical and financial information.
163. 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-
122 infringe on Plaintiffs' fundamental right to travel.
164. Because HB 1804 and 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-
115(A) and (D), and 6-122 limit fundamental rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, they can only be justified by a compelling state interest.

165. There is no compelling state interest for restricting Plaintiffs' fundamental
rights by enacting HB 1804 or 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-
114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
166. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-
115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling state interest.

,

~ I

"

167. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are the least restrictive method available to achieve any compelling state interest.

168. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the substantive due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

169. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and.47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

170. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

171. For the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of substantive due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 violate the substantive due process guarantees of Article 2, Section 7 of

the Oklahoma Constitution.
172. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the substantive due process guarantees of Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
173. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES UNDER
THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
174. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
175. Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, state and local governments are prohibited from depriving any person of property without due process of law.
176. Corporations, including certain Plaintiffs, and their members and/or shareholders, are persons entitled to due process.

· "
177. Due process of law reqUIres, at a mInImUm, that before any person, whether an individual, corporation or other business entity may be deprived of a license or permit, the State must provide:
(a) Notice and a reasonable definite statement of the charges or matters at Issue.
(b) Notice of the time and place of a hearing.
(c) The right to produce witnesses at a hearing.
(d) The right to examine witnesses at a hearing.
(e) The right to a full consideration and determination of the Issues based on the evidence.
178. Identification documents are property interests that are subject to the due process protections of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
179. The Governor, the Attorney General, the State of Oklahoma and its political subdivisions and other public officials are prohibited by the 14th Amendment from suspending or revoking driver's licenses or permits to conduct business with the State unless the State or its political subdivisions provide the holder of the license or permit due process of law.
180. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, violates

,

~ I

j

J

Plaintiffs' procedural due process because it may prevent them from obtaining, renewmg, duplicating or having reissued identification documents to which they may be entitled, without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
181. Section 8 if HB 1804, which will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, violates Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights because it may prevent a them from obtaining or continuing to obtain public benefits to which they may be entitled, without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
182. Section 9 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 68 O.S. § 2385.32, violates Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights because it permits the state to retain Plaintiffs' income without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
183. Section 11 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 70 O.S. § 3242.2, and Section 13, which will amend 70 O.S. § 3242, violate Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights because they permit the state to deny Plaintiffs' property rights, including but not limited to scholarships and resident tuition, without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
184. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-

· ; ,
122 violate Plaintiffs' procedural due process rights because they permit the state to deny the issuance, replacement or renewal of driver licenses to which Plaintiffs [name] would otherwise be entitled.
185. HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 do not provide Plaintiffs with due process before the State may deprive them of property interests.
186. The procedures established under HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 do not satisfy the due process requirements of the United States Constitution
187. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate procedural due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
188. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

, I

t I

SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES OF
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

189. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

190. For the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs' cause of action for violation of procedural due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, the procedures established under HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 do not satisfy the due process requirements of the Oklahoma Constitution

191. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the procedural due process guarantees of the Oklahoma Constitution.

192. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

•

I I

I

J

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION

193. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

194. Plaintiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma.

195. HB 1804 creates a classification based on alienage.

196. HB 1804 has already spawned discrimination by state actors and private individuals against individuals of foreign national origin.

197. This discrimination reflects, and raises a presumption of, intent to discriminate against persons of foreign national origin.

198. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.

199. Section 3 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented aliens to associate with whomever they wish, to travel and to contract.

200. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.

201. Section 4 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented

, •r

I

J

aliens to travel.

202. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, creates a classification based on alienage, whether or not an alien is documented.
203. Section 5 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of aliens to liberty.

204. Section 7 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 25 O.S. § 1313, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.

205. Section 7 also creates a classification based on immigration status. 25 O.S. § 1313(C)(1) will make it a discriminatory practice for an employer in certain circumstances to discharge a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien employee while retaining an undocumented alien employee, but does not make it a discriminatory practice to discharge an immigrant or nonimmigrant who is authorized to work in the United States while retaining an undocumented alien employee. Federal immigration law authorizes many immigrants and non-immigrants to work in the United States.
206. Section 7 of HB 1804 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented aliens to contract, to pursue a livelihood and to work for a living.

207. Section 8 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, creates a

, ''
classification based on undocumented alienage.
208. Section 8 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented aliens to life.
209. Section 8 covers persons fourteen years old and up, some of whom are therefore minor children, who are not accountable for their status as undocumented aliens.
210. Section 9 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 68 O.S. § 2385.32, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.
211. Section 9 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented aliens to contract, to pursue a livelihood, to work for a living, and to property.
212. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.
213. Section 10 infringes on the constitutionally protected right of undocumented aliens to privacy.
214. Section 11 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 70 O.S. § 3242.2, and section 11, which will amend 70 O.S. § 3242, create a classification based on undocumented alienage.

· ..
215. 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-
122 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of Plaintiffs to travel.
216. 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-
122 creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.
217. Some students pursuing postsecondary education are minor children, who are not accountable for their status as undocumented aliens.
218. The inability to obtain postsecondary education will compromise the social, economic, intellectual and psychological well-being of the undocumented aliens subject to HB 1804, and will present an unreasonable obstacle to their advancement on the basis of individual merit.
219. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-
106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
220. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-
115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are narrowly tailored to achieve any compelling state interest.
221. Niether HB 1804 nor 47 a.s. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-
115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are the least restrictive method available to achieve any compelling state interest.

I

' '

222. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not substantially related to any important government interest.

223. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 do not rationally further any legitimate state interest.

224. Particuarly irrational are provisions which deny public benefits including but not limited to scholarships and resident tuition to undocumented aliens who pay the same taxes as other residents of the State of Oklahoma.

225. There is no evidence that undocumented aliens impose any significant burdens on the economy of Oklahoma

226. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

227. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

· .'
NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION CONTAINED
IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
228. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
229. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that "No person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself ...."
230. Section 8 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, requires that applicants for public benefits execute an affidavit under penalty of petjury attesting to their lawful status.
231. Although section 8 provides an exception to the requirement for verification of lawful presence in the event of a medical emergency, it is often difficult to determine whether or not a medical condition is an emergency.
232. Section 8 excludes organ transplant procedures from the category of medical emergency.
233. Section 8 impliedly leaves the determination of whether a medical condition is an emergency to the agency or person administering the public benefit.
234. Section 8 may will thus in certain circumstances place undocumented aliens

· , '
in the catch-22 of either abstaining from public benefits to obtain life-saving medical treatment, or committing a crime. 235. Section 8 thus coerces undocumented aliens to commit a crime. 236. Section 8 violates the Fifth Amendment prohibition against selfincrimination, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. 237. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, prohibits state and local government actors from preventing the disclosure of information relating to immigration status. 238. Oklahoma tax law requires that individuals disclose a social security number and/or other information which could reveal the individual's status as an undocumented alien.
239. Oklahoma tax law makes the records and files of the Oklahoma Tax Commission confidential, and prohibits their disclosure.
240. Section 10 contains no exception for the confidentiality of tax records. 241. Section 10 thus reqUlres that undocumented aliens provide information
which could subject them to criminal prosecution. 242. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is
unconstitutional because it violates the right against self-incrimination

·' '
contained in the U.S. Constitution.
243. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION CONTAINED
IN THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
244. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
245. Article 2, section 21 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides, "[n]o person shall be compelled to give evidence which will tend to incriminate him, except as in this Constitution specifically provided ...."
246. For the reasons discussed in the preceding cause of action, HB 1804 is likely to force people to incriminate themselves.
247. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the right against self-incrimination contained in the Oklahoma Constitution.
248. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or

implement HB 1804.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
249. 202. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
250. The Constitution of Oklahoma divides the State Government of Oklahoma into three branches, the executive, legislative and judicial. Article III of the Constitution states as follows:
251. The powers of the government of the State of Oklahoma shall be divided into three separate departments: The Legislative, Executive, and Judicial; and except as provided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departments of government shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others. Okla. Const. Art. 4, § 1.
252. The Oklahoma Constitution prohibits each branch of government from exercising the powers that are given by the Constitution to a separate branch of government.
253. The Constitution of Oklahoma prohibits the Legislative Branch of

government from exercising executive powers that properly belong to the Executive Branch of government.
254. The Legislative Branch has the power to write and pass laws. The Executive Branch has the sole power to carry out the provisions of the law.
255. Section 10 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, violates the separation of powers because it requires the Executive Branch to negotiate and sign a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the United States Department of Justice and Department of Homeland Security. Such action is properly and solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch.
256. Section 10 mandates that the Executive Branch take the above action regardless of the resources, other duties, professional judgment and other priorities or factors that the Executive Branch would otherwise consider in discharging its duties under HB 1804 and under all other laws for which it has the responsibility to take action.
257. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers of the Oklahoma Constitution.
258. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL UNDER THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION
259. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
260. Article 2, section 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides in relevant part that "All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except that bail may be denied for: 1. capital offenses when the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great; 2. violent offenses; 3. offenses where the maximum sentence may be life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole; 4. felony offenses where the person charged with the offense has been convicted of two or more felony offenses arising out of different transactions; and 5. controlled dangerous substances offenses where the maximum sentence may be at least ten (10) years imprisonment."
261. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, states at subsection (C) that "[fJor purpose of determining the grant of or issuance of

bond, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person whose citizenship status has been verified pursuant to subsection B of this section to be a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States is at risk of flight." Because the language of the bill references "the grant or issuance of bond" not the amount of bond, the legislature clearly intended to deny bail to undocumented aliens.
262. Status as an undocumented alien is not among the enumerated grounds for which the Oklahoma Constitution permits denial of bail.
263. Section 5 of HB 1804 violates the right to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution.
264. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the right to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution.
265. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981
266. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
267. Pursuant to 42 U.S.c. § 1981, "All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other."
268. Section 1981 prohibits discrimination under color of law on account of alienage and race.
269. The provisions of section 1981 apply to aliens, including undocumented aliens, as well as to United States citizens.
270. HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 involve intent to discriminate on the basis of alienage.
271. Section 3 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, will interfere with Plaintiffs' ability to make and enforce contracts with landlords and

common earners.
272. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, will discriminate against Plaintiffs with regard to licenses, and deny them the full and equal benefit of laws..
273. Section 5 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, will subject undocumented aliens to disproportionate punishments and penalties, insofar as it may mandate additional incarceration up to 48 hours of a prisoner unable to verify his or her lawful status.
274. Section 7 ofHB 1804, which will be codified as 25 O.S. § 1313, violates section 1981 because it will make it a discriminatory practice for an employer in certain circumstances to discharge a U.S. citizen or permanent resident alien employee while retaining an undocumented alien employee, but does not make it a discriminatory practice to discharge an immigrant or non-immigrant who is authorized to work in the United States while retaining an undocumented alien employee. Federal immigration law authorizes many immigrants and non-immigrants to work in the United States.
275. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, will discriminate against Plaintiff with respect to the maintenance of confidential information.

276. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 discriminate against Plaintiffs with regard to licenses, and deprive them of the full and equal benefit of laws.
277. The discrimination will interfere with Plaintiffs' right to make and enforce contracts, to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property; and will subject them to discriminatory punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions.
278. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unlawful because they violates 42 V.S.C. § 1981.
279. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully demand judgment awarding the following:
A. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 V.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause

· .
of the United States Constitution; Plaintiffs' due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; equal protection rights under the United States Constitution; rights against self-incrimination under the United States; Contracts Clause of the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; separation of powers doctrine of the Oklahoma Constitution; and right to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution.
B. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate Plaintiffs' due process rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions, and equal protection rights under the United States Constitution.
C. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that HB 1804 is unlawful pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
D. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-1 06(B)(1 0), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unlawful pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
E. A preliminary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

F. An award of attorney fees plus costs and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §
1988.
G. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 15th day of October, 2007.
Counsel for Plaintiffs,
~ ..
Routt C. Sharma, Esq. (OBA# 19702) Sharma Law Firm 403 S. Cheyenne Ave., Ste. 1200 Tulsa, OK 74103 (918) 398-0327 Fax: (918) 516-0232 Email: rohit@sharmalawfirm.com
Williams J. Sanchez-Calderon, Esq. Sanchez Law LLC Lakeside Corporate Park 12915 SW 132 St., Ste. 5 Miami, FL 33186 (305) 232-8889 Fax: (305) 232-8819 Email: imiglaw@aol.com (Florida Bar No. 749060)
Stephen Cortes (OBA# 18359) Riggs, Abney, Neal, Turpen, Orbison & Lewis 5801 Broadway Extension Oklahoma City, OK 73118-7489 (405) 843-9909

EXHIBIT A

1

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

2

1st Session of the 51st Legislature (2007)

3 HOUSE BILL 1804

By: Terrill

4

5

6

AS INTRODUCED

7

An Act relating to illegal immigration; creating the

Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007;

8

stating legislative purpose; making certain acts

unlawful; providing penalties; amending 21 O.S. 2001,

9

Section 1550.42, which relates to identification

documentation; requiring issuance of identification

10

documents to certain persons; providing exceptions;

stating period of validity; providing for renewal

11

under certain circumstances; providing presumption of

validity for renewal, duplication or reissuance of

12

driver license; requiring determination of

citizenship status for persons charged with certain

13

crime; requiring verification of persons determined

to be a foreign national; providing time limitation

14

for verification; requiring notification to certain

entities; deeming certain persons to be a flight

15

risk; requiring certain entity to prepare and issue

certain guidelines and procedures; defining terms;

16

requiring participation in certain pilot program;

prohibiting certain persons from entering into

17

contracts; providing an exception; providing for

cause of action under certain circumstances;

18

requiring certain agency to promulgate certain rules

and regulations; requiring agencies and political

19

subdivisions to verify lawful presence of persons

applying for certain benefits; providing for

20

nondiscriminatory treatment; excluding verification

under certain circumstances; requiring execution of

21

affidavit; requiring certain applicant to receive

benefits through the Systematic Alien Verification of

22

Entitlement Program; making certain actions subject

to certain criminal penalties; authorizing adoption

23

of variations to stated requirements; requiring

certain entities to submit an annual compliance

24

report; requiring Secretary of State to monitor

Req. No. 5519

Page 1

1

certain program; requiring publication of annual

report and certain recommendations; requiring the

2

withholding of percentage of state income tax under

certain circumstances; providing for tax liability

3

for noncompliance; providing an exception; directing

Attorney General to negotiate terms of certain

4

memorandum; requiring certain signatures; prohibiting

certain actions by government entities; authorizing

5

private right of action under certain circumstances;

providing for noncodification; providing for

6

codification; and providing an effective date.

7

8

9 BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

10

SECTION 1.

NEW LAW

A new section of law not to be

11 codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

12

This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Oklahoma

13 Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007".

14

SECTION 2.

NEW LAW

A new section of law not to be

15 codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

16

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing

17 economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal

18 immigration is encouraged by public agencies within this state that

19 provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The

20 State of Oklahoma further finds that illegal immigrants have been

21 harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in

22 this state through the issuance of identification cards that are

23 issued without verifying immigration status, and that these

24 practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration

Req. No. 5519

Page 2

1 law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly

2 restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma.

3 Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a

4 compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal

5 immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully

6 cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of

7 federal immigration laws. The State of Oklahoma also finds that

8 other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various

9 governmental programs and services.

10

SECTION 3.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

11 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 446 of Title 21, unless there is

12 created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

13

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, move, or

14 attempt to transport within the United States any alien knowing or

15 in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to,

16 entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law, in

17 furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United

18 States.

19

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to conceal, harbor, or

20 shelter from detection any alien in any place, including any

21 building or means of transportation, knowing or in reckless

22 disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or

23 remained in the United States in violation of law.

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 3

1

C. Any person violating the provisions of subsections A or B of

2 this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony

3 punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of

4 Corrections for not less than one (1) year, or by a fine of not less

5 than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and

6 imprisonment.

7

SECTION 4.

AMENDATORY

21 O.S. 2001, Section 1550.42, is

8 amended to read as follows:

9

Section 1550.42 A. The following entities may create, publish

10 or otherwise manufacture an identification document, identification

11 card, or identification certificate and may possess an engraved

12 plate or other such devise for the printing of such identification;

13 provided, the name of the issuing entity shall be clearly printed

14 upon the face of the identification:

15

1. Businesses, companies, corporations, service organizations

16 and federal, state and local governmental agencies for employee

17 identification which is designed to identify the bearer as an

18 employee;

19

2. Businesses, companies, corporations and service

20 organizations for customer identification which is designed to

21 identify the bearer as a customer or memberi

22

3. Federal, state and local government agencies for purposes

23 authorized or required by law or any legitimate purpose consistent

24 with the duties of such an agency, including but not limited to,

Req. No. 5519

Page 4

1 voter identification cards, driver's driver licenses,

2 nondriver identification cards, passports, birth certificates and

3 social security cards;

4

4. Any public school or state or private educational

5 institution, as defined by Sections 1-106, 21-101 or 3102 of Title

6 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, to identify the bearer as an

7 administrator, faculty member, student or employee;

8

5. Any professional organization or labor union to identify the

9 bearer as a member of the professional organization or labor union;

10 and

11

6. Businesses, companies or corporations which manufacture

12 medical-alert identification for the wearer thereof.

13

B. All identification documents as provided for in paragraph 3

14 or 4 of subsection A of this section shall be issued only to United

15 States citizens, legal permanent resident aliens, or holders of

16 valid unexpired nonimmigrant visas.

17

C. The provisions of subsection B of this section shall not

18 apply when an applicant presents, in person, valid documentary

19 evidence of:

20

1. A valid, unexpired immigrant or nonimmigrant visa status for

21 admission into the United States;

22

2. A pending or approved application for asylum In the United

23 States

24

3. Admission into the United States in refugee status;

Req. No. 5519

Page 5

1

4. A pending or approved application for temporary protected

2 status in the United States;

3

5. Approved deferred action status; or

4

6. A pending application for adjustment of status to legal

5 permanent residence status or conditional resident status.

6 Upon approval, the applicant may be issued an identification

7 document provided for in paragraph 3 or 4 of subsection A of this

8 section. Such identification document shall be valid only during

9 the period of time of the authorized stay of the applicant in the

10 United States or if there is no definite end to the period of

11 authorized stay, a period of one (1) year. Any identification

12 document issued pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall

13 clearly indicate that it is temporary and shall state the date that

14 the identification document expires. Such identification document

15 may be renewed only upon presentation of valid documentary evidence

16 that the status by which the applicant qualified for the

17 identification document has been extended by the United States

18 Immigration and Naturalization Service or the Bureau of Citizenship

19 and Immigration Services of the United States Department of Homeland

20 Security.

21

D. Any driver license for which an application has been made

22 for renewal, duplication or reissuance shall be presumed to have

23 been issued in accordance with the provisions of subsection C of

24 this section, provided that, at the time the application is made,

Req. No. 5519

Page 6

1 the driver license has not expired, or been cancelled, suspended or

2 revoked. The requirements of subsection C of this section shall

3 apply, however, to a renewal, duplication or reissuance if the

4 Department of Public Safety is notified by a local, state or federal

5 government agency that the individual seeking such renewal,

6 duplication or reissuance is neither a citizen of the United States

7 nor legally in the United States.

8

SECTION S.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

9 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 171.2 of Title 22, unless there

10 is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

11

A. When a person charged with a felony or with driving under

12 the influence pursuant to Section 11-902 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma

13 Statutes is confined, for any period, in the jail of the county, any

14 municipality or a jail operated by a regional jail authority, a

IS reasonable effort shall be made to determine the citizenship status

16 of the person so confined.

17

B. If the prisoner is a foreign national, the keeper of the

18 jailor other officer shall make a reasonable effort to verify that

19 the prisoner has been lawfully admitted to the United States and if

20 lawfully admitted, that such lawful status has not expired. If

21 verification of lawful status can not be made from documents in the

22 possession of the prisoner, verification shall be made within forty-

23 eight hours through a query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of

24 the United States Department of Homeland Security or other office or

Req. No. 5519

Page 7

1 agency designated for that purpose by the United States Department

2 of Homeland Security. If the prisoner is determined not to be

3 lawfully admitted to the United States, the keeper of the jailor

4 other officer shall notify the United States Department of Homeland

5 Security.

6

C. For the purpose of determining the grant of or issuance of

7 bond, a person whose citizenship status has been verified pursuant

8 to subsection B of this section to be a foreign national who has not

9 been lawfully admitted to the United States, shall be deemed to be a

10 risk of flight.

11

D. The Oklahoma Sheriffs' Association shall prepare and issue

12 guidelines and procedures used to comply with the provisions of this

13 section.

14

SECTION 6.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

15 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1312 of Title 25, unless there

16 is created a duplication ln numbering, reads as follows:

17

As used in Sections 6 and 7 of this act, the term:

18

1. "Basic Pilot Program" shall mean the electronic verification

19 of work authorization program of the Illegal Immigration Reform and

20 Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L 104-208, Division C,

21 Section 403(a) i 8 U.S.C. 1324a, and operated by the United States

22 Department of Homeland Security or any equivalent federal work

23 authorization program operated by the United States Department of

24 Homeland Security or any other designated federal agency authorized

Req. No. 5519

Page 8

1 to verify the work authorization status of newly hired employees,

2 pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA),

3 D.L. 99-603;

4

2. "Public employer" means every department, agency, or

5 instrumentality of the state or a political subdivision of the

6 state; and

7

3. "Subcontractor" includes a subcontractor, contract employee,

8 staffing agency, or any contractor regardless of its tier.

9

SECTION 7.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

10 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1313 of Title 25, unless there

11 is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

12

A. Every public employer shall register and participate in the

13 Basic Pilot Program to verify the work authorization status of all

14 new employees.

15

B. 1. No public employer shall enter into a contract for the

16 physical performance of services within this state unless the

17 contractor registers and participates in the Basic Pilot Program to

18 verify the work authorization status of all new employees.

19

2. No contractor or subcontractor who enters a contract with a

20 public employer shall enter into such a contract or subcontract in

21 connection with the physical performance of services within this

22 state unless the contractor or subcontractor registers and

23 participates in the Basic Pilot Program to verify information of all

24 new employees.

Req. No. 5519

Page 9

1

3. The discharge of any United States citizen or permanent

2 resident alien employee by an employer of this state, who, on the

3 date of the discharge employed an unauthorized alien, shall be an

4 unfair trade practice as defined in Section 752 of Title 15 of the

5 Oklahoma Statutes. The discharged employee shall have a private

6 cause of action for such unfair trade practice.

7

C. The provisions of this section shall be enforced without

8 regard to race or national origin.

9

D. The Department of Labor shall prescribe forms and promulgate

10 rules and regulations deemed necessary in order to administer and

11 effectuate the provisions of this section and publish such rules and

12 regulations on the Department of Labor website.

13

SECTION 8.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

14 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 71 of Title 56, unless there is

15 created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

16

A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section or where

17 exempted by federal law, every agency or a political subdivision of

18 this state shall verify the lawful presence in the United States of

19 any natural person fourteen (14) years of age or older who has

20 applied for state or local public benefits, as defined in 8 U.S.C.

21 Section 1621, or for federal public benefits, as defined in 8 U.S.C.

22 Section 1611, that is administered by an agency or a political

23 subdivision of this state.

24

Reg. No. 5519

Page 10

1

B. The provisions of this section shall be enforced without

2 regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.

3

C. Verification of lawful presence under the provisions of this

4 section shall not be required:

5

1. For any purpose for which lawful presence in the United

6 States is not restricted by law, ordinance, or regulation;

7

2. For assistance for health care items and services that are

8 necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition, as

9 defined in 42 U.S.C. Section 1396b(v) (3), of the alien involved and

10 are not related to an organ transplant procedure;

11

3. For short-term, noncash, in-kind emergency disaster reI f;

12

4. For public health assistance for immunizations with respect

13 to diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of

14 communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are caused by a

15 communicable disease; or

16

5. For programs, services, or assistance such as soup kitchens,

17 crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified

18 by the United States Attorney General, in the sole and unreviewable

19 discretion of the United States Attorney General after consultation

20 with appropriate federal agencies and departments, which:

21

a. deliver in-kind services at the community level,

22

including through public or private nonprofit

23

agencies,

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 11

1

b. do not condition the provision of assistance, the

2

amount of assistance provided, or the cost of

3

assistance provided on the income or resources of the

4

individual recipient, and

5

c. are necessary for the protection of life or safety;

6

or

7

6. For prenatal care.

8

D. Verification of lawful presence in the United States by the

9 agency or political subdivision required to make such verification

10 shall require that the applicant execute an affidavit under penalty

11 of perjury that:

12

1. He or she is a United States citizen; or

13

2. He or she is a qualified alien under the federal Immigration

14 and Nationality Act, and is lawfully present in the United States.

15

E. For any applicant who has executed the affidavit described

16 in paragraph 2 of subsection D of this section, eligibility for

17 benefits shall be made through the Systematic Alien Verification of

18 Entitlement program operated by the United States Department of

19 Homeland Security or a successor program designated by the United

20 States Department of Homeland Security. Until such eligibility

21 verification is made, the affidavit may be presumed to be proof of

22 lawful presence for the purposes of this section.

23

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 12

1

F. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false,

2 fictitious, or fraudulent statement of representation in an

3 affidavit executed pursuant to subsection D of this section shall be

4 subject to criminal penalties applicable in this state for

5 fraudulently obtaining public assistance program benefits. If the
6 affidavit constitutes a false claim of u.s. citizenship under 18 7 u.s.c. Section 911 a complaint shall be filed by the agency

8 requiring the affidavit with the United States Attorney for the

9 Western District of Oklahoma.

10

G. Agencies or political subdivisions of this state may adopt

11 variations to the requirements of the provisions of this section

12 which demonstrably improve the efficiency or reduce delay in the

13 verification process, or to provide for adjudication of unique

14 individual circumstances where the verification procedures in this

15 section would impose unusual hardship on a legal resident of

16 Oklahoma.

17

H. It shall be unlawful for any agency or a political

18 subdivision of this state to provide any state, local, or federal

19 benefit, as defined in 8 U.S.C. Section 1621 or 8 U.S.C. Section

20 1611, in violation of the provisions of this section.

21

I. Each state agency or department which administers any

22 program of state or local public benefits shall provide an annual

23 report to the Office of the Secretary of State with respect to its

24 compliance with the provisions of this section. Any and all errors

Req. No. 5519

Page 13

1 shall be reported to the United States Department of Homeland

2 Security by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State shall

3 monitor the Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement program and

4 its verification application errors and significant delays and shall

5 provide an annual public report on such errors and significant

6 delays, and recommendations to ensure that the application of the

7 Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlement program is not

8 erroneously denying benefits to legal residents of Oklahoma.

9

SECTION 9.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

10 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 2385.32 of Title 68, unless

11 there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

12

A. The employer shall be required to withhold state income tax

13 at the rate of six percent (6%) of the amount of compensation paid

14 to an individual which compensation is required to be reported on

15 Form 1099 and with respect to which the individual has failed to

16 provide a valid Social Security Number, issued by the U.S. Social

17 Security Administration.

18

B. Any employer who

Is to comply with the withholding

19 requirements of this subsection shall be liable for the taxes

20 required to have been withheld unless such employer is exempt from

21 federal withholding with respect to such individual pursuant to a

22 properly filed Internal Revenue Service Form 8233 or its equivalent,

23 and has provided a copy of such form to the Oklahoma Tax Commission.

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 14

1

SECTION 10.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

2 in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 20J of Tit 74, unless there is

3 created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

4

A. The Attorney General is authorized and directed to negotiate

5 the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of

6 Oklahoma and the United States Department of Justice or the United

7 States Department of Homeland Security concerning the enforcement of

8 federal immigration and custom laws, detention and removals, and

9 investigations in the State of Oklahoma.

10

B. The Memorandum of Understanding negotiated pursuant to

11 subsection A of this section shall be signed on behalf of this state

12 by the Attorney General and the Governor or as otherwise required by

13 the appropriate federal agency.

14

C. No local government, whether acting through its governing

15 body or by an initiative, referendum, or any other process, shall

16 enact any ordinance or policy that limits or prohibits a law

17 enforcement officer, local official, or local government employee

18 from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard

19 to the immigration status of any person within this state.

20

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no government

21 entity or official within the State of Oklahoma, may prohibit, or in

22 any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to,

23 or receiving from, the United States Department of Homeland

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 15

1 Security, information regarding the citizenship or immigration

2 status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

3

E. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person or

4 agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a public employee from

5 doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the

6 immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

7

1. Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such

8 information from, the U.S. Department of Homeland SecuritYi

9

2. Maintaining such informationi or

10

3. Exchanging such information with any other federal, state,

11 or local government entity.

12

F. The provisions of this section shall allow for a private

13 right of action by any natural or legal person lawfully domiciled in

14 this state to file for a writ of mandamus to compel any non-

15 cooperating local state governmental agency to comply with such

16 reporting laws.

17

SECTION 11. This act shall become effective November I, 2007.

18

19

51-1 5519

GRS

01/09/07

20

21

22

23

24

Req. No. 5519

Page 16

EXHIBIT B

Search

How do I find it?

Page 1 of 1

Home

News

Travel

Money

Sports

.. Print edition News Inside News

. s:~~t;rr;: News· Sports· Money· Life • Previous editions: 09/27/2007

Page 3A

Life

Tech

Weather

'" Cars" Event tick • Search Archives
E-mail I Save I Print I Reprints & Permission

Illegal immigrants moving out

By Emily Bazar USA TODAY

People leave states and cities that have taken up strict policies in going after

lawbreakers

Illegal immigrants living in states and cities that have adopted strict immigration policies are packing up and moving back to their countries or to neighboring states.

The exodus has been fueled by a wave of laws targeting illegal immigrants in Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado, Georgia and elsewt Many were passed after congressional efforts to overhaul the immigration system collapsed in June.

Immigrants say the laws have raised fears of workplace raids and deportation.

"People now are really frightened and scared because they don't know what's going to happen," says Juliana Stout, an editor at newspaper EI Nacional de Oklahoma. "They're selling houses. They're leaving the country."

Supporters of the laws cheer the departure of illegal immigrants and say the laws are working as intended.

Oklahoma state Rep. Randy Terrill, Republican author of his state's law, says the flight proves it is working. "That was the intend purpose," he says. "It would be just fine with me if we exported all illegal aliens to the surrounding states."

Most provisions of an Oklahoma law take effect in November. Among other things, it cuts off benefits such as welfare and colleg' financial aid.

There are no hard demographic data on the trend, partly because it's hard to track people who are in the USA illegally - but sc~ officials, real estate agents and church leaders say the movement is unmistakable.

In Tulsa, several schools have seen a drop in Hispanic enrollment. About 60% of Kendall-Whittier Elementary School's 950 stud Hispanic, Principal Judy Feary says. Since an enrollment report Sept. 10, she says, 14 have left. Four more said last week that t would move.

Three weeks ago, one couple dropped their three children at school, then returned after lunch with their belongings packed in an

Page 2 of2

and trailer. Feary says they took the kids and said they were moving back to Mexico. "They were afraid and cited the immigratior she says.

Marshall Elementary, where enrollment is 60% Hispanic, has lost about 10 students this year to the immigration law, Principal K, Robinson says. Most moved to Texas. "These are families that have been here for a long time," she says.

Illegal immigrants also are leaving Georgia, where a law requires companies on government contracts with at least 500 employe check new hires against a federal database to make sure they are legally authorized to work.

Mario Reyes, senior minister at the Tabernacle of Atlanta, says his church lost about 10 families this summer. His daughter, a re agent, is helping them sell their homes.

Churches across the city report similar losses, says Antonio Mansogo, a board member of the National Coalition of Latino Clerm Christian Leaders.

"There's tension because you don't know when immigration (agents) might show up, and a lot of people don't want to take those chances," he says.

Real estate agent Guadalupe Sosa in Avondale, Ariz., outside Phoenix, says migration from the state began about three months shortly after Gov. Janet Napolitano, a Democrat, signed a law that will take effect in January. Employers who hire illegal immigra lose their business licenses. Of the 10 homes Sosa has on the market, half belong to families that plan to leave because of immi tensions. "They know they might be losing everything today or tomorrow," she says.

Maria Sanchez, 35, joined the migration with her sister and nephew, who are citizens. Sanchez was in the USA illegally, but she gotten a temporary work permit.

The three lived in Aurora, Colo., when Sanchez was fired from her job as district manager of a fast-food chain after she couldn't I valid Social Security number.

Colorado has approved several immigration measures. One gives employers 20 days to check and photocopy documents such c driver's licenses and Social Security cards, which new workers present to prove their legal status.

Because of the laws, Sanchez, her sister and nephew left five months ago. "I moved to Utah because they don't have the same I here," she says.

State Sen. Dave Schultheis says he hasn't observed a major migration out of Colorado but has heard anecdotal reports that iIIeg immigrants are leaving. "It's absolutely a good thing," he says. "We want to make Colorado the least friendly state to people who illegally."

In Hazleton, Pa., families started moving away after the city passed an illegal-immigrant law last summer, saysRudy Espinal, he, Hazleton Hispanic Business Association. The law would fine landlords who rented to illegal immigrants and suspend the busines licenses of companies that hired them. A companion measure would require tenants to register with the city and pay $10 for are permit.

A federal judge ruled the measures unconstitutional in July, but that hasn't stopped people moving away, he says.

"People are still leaving," Espinal says. "Some people have told me that they're leaving because they don't want their kids to gro' an environment like this."

Hazleton Mayor Lou Barletta counters that some illegal immigrants who moved came back after the judge's decision, which the ( appealing. "I see a reversal," he says. "In a small city, it becomes obvious.... Schools are overcrowded, and there are five-hour the emergency room."

He says, "We don't want to chase immigrants away, just the illegal aliens who are causing many of the problem we are having."

Page 3A

E-mail I Save I Print I Reprints & Permission

Related Advertisin Links
Invest with T. Rowe Price Find the right no-load fund for your retirement. Visit our IRA...
www.troweprice.com
What's Your Credit Score? View All 3 Credit Scores and Credit Reports Online Now. See...
FreeCreditReportslnstantly.com
I

Page 3 of3

Newspaper Home Delivery - Subscribe Today

Horne· News· Travel·

• Life· Tech· Weather

About USATODAY.com: Site Map I FAQ I Contact Us I Jobs with Us I Terms of Service Privacy Policy/Your California Privacy Right I Media Kit I Media Lounge I Press Room I Reprints and Permissions

News Your Way:

Mobile News I Email News I Add USATODAY.com RSS feeds I Podcasts I Partners: USA WEEKEND I Sports Weekly I Education I Space.com

Widgets

Copyright 2007 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co, Inc.

EXHIBIT C

September 5,2007
The Honorable W.A. Drew Edmondson Attorney General of Oklahoma 313 NE 21 st St. Oklahoma City, OK 73105
Dear Attorney General Edmondson:
Conforming with the provisions of 74 O.S. 18b (A) (5), as duly elected members of the Oklahoma State Legislature we place our signatures on this letter and do hereby formally request an official opinion regarding the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizens Protection Act of 2007 enacted this past Legislative Session.
Introduction
The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 was signed by the Governor on May 8, 2007. However, as widely reported in the press, there is a great deal of confusion regarding what the bill does and does not do. There are also questions regarding to how the law will affect public agencies, schools, and other members of our constituency. Below, are a number of specific questions on which we seek the State's legal opinion.
Section 2: Claims "[I]lIegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state ... "
Does the Oklahoma Legislature have the power to establish a fact that is true or not true, absent empirically true and

credible evidence to substantiate the recitation of purpose? Are the recitations mere surplus, or unproven statements which would cause this Act to fail based upon the lack of true statement of purpose?
Section 3: Section 3 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 appears to create penal provisions relating to the transporting, harboring, or sheltering of individuals who may be illegally present in the state. It is imperative that the public understand what specific acts would constitute violations under the new law.
1. With regard to Section 3 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, what acts constitute "transporting", "moving", or "attempting to transport" in the State of Oklahoma any alien knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law, in furtberance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States?
2. With regard to Section 3 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, what acts constitute "concealing", "harboring", or "sheltering" from detection any alien in any place within the State of Oklaboma including any building or means of transportation, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law?
3. With regard to Section 3 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007, how does the State of Oklahoma define "in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States?"

4. To 'the extent that the definitions of the terms ou'tlined above in questions 1 and 2 are coterminous with federal court interpretation of the same terms in
8 USC Section 1324, is Section 3 a state-imposed regulation of immigration?
Section 4:
Section 4 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 requires that all identification documents issued by a public school or state or private educational institution, as defined by Sections 1-106, 21-101 or 3102 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, be issued only to United States citizens, nationals and legal permanent resident aliens. See Sec. 4 A (4). A few other categories of immigrants can obtain identification documents marked "temporary" if they submit particular documents. Students, including lawfully present immigrants, who do not have these documents cannot get an identification card for use outside of the campus. Although Section 4(O)allows schools to issue identification cards to all students, provided that these cards are marked as "only for campus" use, this is not mandated.
1. Does Section 4 authorize public and private elementary and secondary schools to deny issuance of identification cards to students who are not U.S. citizens, nationals, lawful permanent residents, or menlbers of the specified categories of immigrants in Section 4?
2. Does the categorization of immigrants for the purpose of eligibility for school identification constitute a state-imposed regulation of immigration?
3. Does Section 4 violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and federal

law unless in implementing it the State requires all public elementary and secondary schools that issue identification cards to issue only school-use cards to all students without any inquiry into their immigration status?
Section 5 (C): "for the purpose of determining the grant of or issuance of bond, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person whose citizenship status has been verified pursuant to subsection B of this section to be a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States is at risk of flight."
Does the mandate and recreation of a rebuttable presumption in the granting of, or issuance of a bond in a criminal matter infringe upon the Separation of Powers and the existing judicial discretion of individual consideration in establishing a bond?
Section 5(C) of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 provides that for the purposes of determining bond, "it shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person [who] ... has been verified pursuant to [section 5 (8)] to be a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States is at risk of flight."
1. Under HB 1804, can state officials, including judges, rely on a defendant's current lack of immigration status to infer that he or she was not lawfully admitted to the United States?
2. Must defendants have the opportunity to rebut both the presumption of flight risk and any determination that the defendant was not lawfully admitted to the United States?

3. Do full due process protections, including the right to counsel, apply to proceedings regarding the application of Section 5(C)?
4. May state officials attempt to answer questions of inlmigration law that arise in determining the applicability of Section 5(C)?
Section 7:
Section 7 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 mandates that all public employers and all contractors who contract with public errlployers participate in the otherwise voluntary Basic Pilot program for verification of employee work authorization status, In addition, Section 7 creates a private cause of action for discharged U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident employees, including those who are terminated for causes such as embezzlement, theft, arson, or assault, to challenge their termination if they can prove that the employer was employing an unauthorized worker preempted by federal law.
1. Does HB 1804 mandate that certain Oklahoma employers participate in an employment verification program that Congress has chosen to make voluntary and temporary?
2. Does HB 1804 create a private cause of action holding employers strictly liable for the employment of noncitizens lacking work authorization?
Section 8:
Section 8 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection

Act of 2007 requires state agencies and subdivisions of the state to verify the lawful presence of applicants over 14 years old for non-exerrlpt federal public benefits (as defined in 8 USC section 1611) and non-exerrlpt state or local public benefits (as defined in 8 USC Section 1621) except where "lawful presence in the United States is not restricted by law, ordinance or regulation."
Given that Section 8 requires verification of lawful presence only for benefits that are restricted on the basis of lawful presence. Instead, it requires a non-citizen to declare that he or she is "a qualified alien under the Federal Immigration and Nationality Act and is lawfully present in the United States."
1. Please confirm that Section 8's verification requirement: (I) applies only where lawful presence is a condition of eligibility under existing law, regulation or ordinance; and (2) does not affect the eligibility rules governing federal, state, or local public benefits. 2. In implementing HB 1804, please confirm if Oklahoma will adhere to federal guidance and rules on the following.
(a) Verification procedures[1] (b) Exemptions from verification requirements, including the exemption for non-profit charitable organizations under 8 U.S.C. section 1642(d); (c) The definition of public benefits services that fall outside of the definition; and those exempt from immigration restrictions. [2] (d) Privacy, anti-discrimination protections, and other safeguards for benefit applicants under the SAVE program.[3]
3. In light of the fact that there is no federal law requirement that applicants for federal, state, or local public benefits

, ,
declare both qualified immigrant status and lawful presence, please confirm that the affidavits under Section 8(D) will be required only where lawful presence is a condition of eligibility under existing law, ordinance or regulation and that the affidavit requirement will focus only on whether the applicant is lawfully present. [4]
4. Will Oklahoma ensure that trafficking victims have access to federal benefits to the same extent as refugees, regardless of their immigration status?[5]
5. Does HB 1804 create its own definition of lawful presence different from federal definitions of that term, such as the one designated for Title II benefits purposes, at 8 CFR 103.12[6]
Section 10(A): The Attorney General is authorized and directed to negotiate the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Oklahoma and the United States Department of Justice or the United States Department of Homeland Security,"
The American National Government is what it is and is not required to operate as a Republic and the term is never used in the United States Constitution, whereas Oklahoma is required to maintain itself as a Republic, as is the legislative power of the State vested in the Legislature.
1. Given the requirement of the Enabling Act that Oklahoma be founded and nlaintained as a Republic, by what right or authority can the Attorney General of Oklahoma negotiate the particulars of the application and enforcement of this Act with the United States Government?

~ "
2. Is this Act a violation of the Separation of Powers requirement implicit in the requirement that Oklahoma operate as a Republic?
Section 10(F): "The provisions of this section shall allow for a private right of action by any natural or legal person lawfully domiciled in this state to file for a writ of mandamus to compel any noncooperating local or state government agency to comply with such reporting laws."
Expressio Unis Est Exlusio Alterius.
Is the use of Writ of Mandamus by a private citizen indirectly delegating the police power of the State to a private person? Further, if a private citizen is authorized a Writ of Mandamus, is he denied the use of a Writ of Prohibition to enforce this Act?
Section 12: "Subject to the availability of funding a Fraudulent Documents Identification (FDI) Unit for the primary purpose of investigating and apprehending persons or entities that participate in the sale or distribution of fraudulent documents used for identification purposes. The Unit shall additionally specialize in fraudulent identification documents created and prepared for persons who are unlawfully residing within the state of Oklahoma. The Department shall employ sufficient employees to investigate and implement FDI Unit."
This provision appears to establish an agency of state government which is created to control the effect and means of immigration in Oklahoma. This conclusion is re-enforced by Section 2 of Enrolled House Bill 1804 in the legislative

, "
expresses its legislative intent and findings that, "[W]hen illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through issuance of identification cards that are issued without the verifying immigration status, these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermines the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma ..."
Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal irrlmigration."
Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides, in full, that, "The Legislature shall have no power to appropriate any of the public money for the establishment and maintenance of a Bureau of Immigration in the State."
Therefore, it is apparent that the Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit established by Section 12 of Enrolled House Bill 1804 is a separate and distinct unit of state government created for the purpose of enforcing immigration laws. Does this provision violate Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution?
Conclusion:
Given that certain portions of the law will take effect on November 1,2007, I request that you expedite your legal opinion. I thank you for your consideration and analysis in advance.
Sincerely,

Representative AI Lindley Representative Wallace Collins District 93 405-557-7371 7386

District 45 405-557-

Representative AI McAffrey Representative Scott BigHorse District 88 405-557 -7396

District 36 405-557 -7322

Representative Bill Nations District 44 405-557 -7323
[1] The federal welfare law (PRWORA) charged the U.S. Attorney General with promulgating rules on verification for federal, state and local benefits. 8 U.S.C. section 1642. The U.S. Department of Justice's Interim Guidance on Verification of Citizenship, Qualified Alien Status and Eligibility under Title IV of PRWORA, 62 FR 61344 (Nov 17, 1997)("lnterim Guidance") governs verification of eligibility for federal public benefits and serves as guidance on state and local public benefits. [2] Consistent with DOJ's Interim Guidance, federal agencies are to decide which, if any, of the programs under their jurisdiction fall within the definition of "federal public benefit" and which among these programs are exempt from restriction. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued such guidance, listing specific programs that meet

I

,

this definition and clarifying that not all services within these programs are restricted 63 FR 41657 (Aug 4, 1998). The U.S. Attorney General issued further guidance on the types of programs that meet the exemption for services "necessary to protect life or safety." 66 FR. 3613-16 (Jan 16, 2001). A few other federal agencies and HHS sub-agencies have issued similar guidance. [3] See DOJ's Interim Guidance, and 42 USC Section 1320b-7. See also Tri-Agency Guidance Regarding inquiries into citizenship, Immigration Status and Social Security Numbers in State Applications http://www.hhs.gov/ocrlimmigrationtriagency.html. [4] Under the federal laws governing eligibility for benefits "qualified" immigrants are a subset of the groups considerred to be lawfully present in
the U.S. See, e.g. 8 C.F.R. 103.12. [5] Under 22 U.S.C. Section 7105(b)(1), individuals who have been
certified by the Office of Refugee Resettlement as willing to assist in the
prosecution of a severe form of human trafficking, minors who are victims of trafficking, and derivative beneficiaries of trafficking victims, are eligible for federal benefits to the same extent as refugees, regardless of the victims immigration status. There is no lawful presence requirement for these benefits. [6] See also Yang v. Barnhart, Civ. No 01-2307 (RHKlSRN)(O.Minn. 2002)(for SSI purposes, lawfully present also includes parents of U.S. Citizens whose visa petitions have been approved and who have filed an application for adjustment of status).
NOTICE: The information in this email is confidential, legally privileged, and exempt from disclosure under law. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this email by anyone else is unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and unlawful.
The Oklahoma House of Reps does not warrant any e-mail transmission received as being virus free, and disclaims any liability for losses or damages arising from the use of this e-mail or its attachments. Recipients of e-mail assume the risk of possible computer virus exposure by opening or utilizing the e-mail and its attachments, and waive any right or recourse against the House by doing

so.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO

)

CLERGY, INC; CONLAMIC-OKLAHOMA; )

CHURCH EFICAZ; CHURCH PIEDRA

)

ANGULAR; MEXICO LINDO

)

RESTAURANTS; JOHN DOE ONE; JOHN

)

DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JANE

)

DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; and JOHN

)

DOE SIX, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State

)

of Oklahoma, and DREW EDMONDSON,

)

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 07-CV-594-JHP

ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court is the Court’s sua sponte consideration of whether any named Plaintiff has standing to bring suit. Because the Court finds that no such standing exists, the case is DISMISSED without prejudice.
BACKGROUND On May 8, 2007, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed into law House Bill 1804 (“HB 1804"). The bill is designed to combat the perceived illegal immigration1 problems faced by the state

1The Court recognizes that a variety of different terms are used interchangeably with the term “illegal immigrant” (i.e., “illegal alien” and “undocumented alien”). The Court views them as interchangeable.
1

COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

of Oklahoma. Although the bill the does not take effect until November 1, 2007, Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit challenging its constitutionality on October 15, 2007. Plaintiffs’ suit alleges the bill violates the United States Constitution, the Oklahoma Constitution, and federal law. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
The Court raises the issue of standing sua sponte and addresses that issue herein. DISCUSSION
Article III of the United States Constitution does not give litigants an absolute right to have their claims heard by an Article III court. The exercise of federal judicial power is, and always has been, predicated on the existence of a case or controversy. Therefore, litigants seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court must properly establish standing to bring suit. Standing is the threshold question in every federal case, and determines the very power of a court to entertain the suit before it. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
Over the years the Supreme Court has established that the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” contains three elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest which is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 56061 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).
While the Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff “does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventative relief,” Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 (1923), a plaintiff seeking such preventative relief is not relieved of their burden
2
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

of establishing an “injury in fact” under Lujan’s first prong. The Court has consistently maintained that the “federal judicial power is to be exercised...only at the instance of one who is himself immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm, by the challenged action.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 504 (1961) (emphasis added). Lujan is instructive as to what constitutes such “immediate” harm and the lesson of Lujan is clear: mere allegations that at some point in the future an injury might occur are not enough to establish standing. What is required is a more particularized allegation showing that an injury will occur at a certain time in the future.
In the present case, this Court is confronted with alleged injuries that fall into two general categories: 1) allegations of “actual” injuries already sustained as a result of HB 1804; and 2) allegations of “imminent” injuries that will be sustained when HB 1804 goes into effect on November 1, 2007. The first category of alleged injuries must be examined under the causation prong of the Lujan analysis, while the second category of alleged injuries must be examined under the “injury in fact” prong of the Lujan analysis. The Court applies the Lujan standing analysis to the injuries asserted by each Plaintiff and does so in turn. A. CONLAMIC-USA
The National Coalition of Latino Clergy, Inc. (“CONLAMIC-USA”) is identified as a Plaintiff in the caption of the case and in paragraph six of the complaint. (Compl. ¶ 6.) CONLAMICUSA is not mentioned in the complaint again. No injury is alleged on the part of CONLAMIC-USA, nor is there allegation of injury to any of its members. In fact, other than a reference to its Oklahoma branch, the complaint makes no mention of CONLAMIC-USA’s membership. Because CONLAMIC-USA has failed to allege it suffered or is threatened with any injury, or that any of its members suffered or are threatened with any injury, CONLAMIC-USA has no standing to bring suit.
3
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

B. CONLAMIC-Oklahoma The Oklahoma branch of CONLAMIC-USA, CONLAMIC-Oklahoma, is identified as a
Plaintiff in the caption of the case and in paragraph seven of the complaint. (Compl. ¶ 7.) CONLAMIC-Oklahoma is not mentioned in the complaint again. No injury is alleged on the part of CONLAMIC-Oklahoma, nor is there allegation of injury to any of its members. In fact, the complaint makes no mention of CONLAMIC-Oklahoma’s membership. Because CONLAMICOklahoma has failed to allege it suffered or is threatened with any injury, or that any of its members suffered or are threatened with any injury, CONLAMIC-Oklahoma has no standing to bring suit. C. Church Eficaz
Church Eficaz alleges two distinct injuries. First, Church Eficaz alleges that HB 1804 has caused a decline in its church membership:
Before the passage of HB 1804 Church Eficaz had approximately 200 members. Its membership has now dwindled to approximately 100 members, as a result of the fear caused by HB 1804's passage[.] (Compl. ¶ 9.) This alleged injury cannot be causally related to any provision of HB 1804 as HB 1804 does not become law until November 1, 2007. It is impossible for Church Eficaz to causally link any provision of HB 1804 to declining membership because at the time of the alleged injury HB 1804 had no legal effect. Without such a causal connection the alleged injury is deficient for purposes of a standing analysis. Second, Church Eficaz alleges fear of prosecution under the criminal provision of HB 1804: Church Eficaz fears they will be subject to numerous felonies if they continue to transport individuals, who happen to be undocumented, after November 1, 2007. (Compl. ¶ 12.) Church Eficaz, however, makes no claim that any member of its church is in fact an illegal that would subject the church to prosecution under the criminal statute. To the contrary, the
4
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

church makes a point of insisting that it does not inquire into the citizenship of its members. (Compl. ¶ 10.) The Court therefore, finds this alleged injury to be the hypothetical sort prohibited under Lujan. Were the church to simply admit that a single church member was in fact illegal, that the church intended to keep transporting its members, and that the church feared that if it transported its illegal member it would be subject to prosecution under HB 1804, the church would perhaps have standing. But the church instead makes the conjectural argument that it is possible that a member might be illegal, and it is possible that an illegal member (were they to exist) might be transported in a church vehicle, thus opening up the church to possible prosecution under HB 1804. The Court is not willing to engage in such a strained hypothetical. This injury, as alleged by the church, does not survive a Lujan analysis.
Because the injuries alleged by Church Eficaz are speculative at best, the church has no standing to bring suit. D. Church Piedra Angular
Church Piedra Angular alleges two injuries identical to those alleged by Church Eficaz. The Courts finds the analysis it applied to Church Eficaz’s claim to be applicable here, and for the reasons referenced above, finds that Church Piedra Angular has no standing to bring suit.
E. Mexico Lindo Restaurants2
2The Complaint contains passing mention of “Plaintiff Jose Ramirez” (Compl. ¶ 23, 25.), but no mention of Jose Ramirez as a plaintiff is found in the caption of the case nor in the opening paragraph of the complaint listing each plaintiff. The Court, therefore, does not
5
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

Mexico Lindo Restaurants alleges three injuries. First, Mexico Lindo alleges loss of revenue: Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurant has lost significant revenue since the announcement of HB 1804. Plaintiff Ramirez estimates that he has lost approximately 40% of his business as a result of HB 1804. (Compl. ¶ 25.) For the same reasons that the churchs’ claims of lost congregation fail, so does the restaurants’ claim of lost revenue. This alleged injury cannot possibly be causally related to any provision of HB 1804 as HB 1804 does not become law until November 1, 2007.Without such a causal connection the injury is deficient for purposes of a standing analysis. Second, Mexico Lindo alleges a threatened administrative burden: Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants has hired individuals to work in their business. If Plaintiff does not participate in the ‘federal status verification system’ he will not have access to state contracts according to HB1804 [sic]. (Compl. ¶ 26.) The provision of HB 1804 that Mexico Lindo references is not a mandatory provision. That provision simply says that if an employer wants to be eligible for state contracts, the employer must comply with certain provisions. Here, Mexico Lindo makes no allegation that it has at any point in its existence entered into a contract with the state of Oklahoma; it makes no allegation that it currently has state contracts that it will lose on November 1, 2007 if it does not comply with this provision of HB 1804; and further makes no allegation that it is currently bidding for, or even has any intention of entering into, state contracts. In the absence of any such allegation, Mexico Lindo’s claim is purely conjectural. As pled, Mexico Lindo’s second claim is not “concrete and particularized” enough to support standing. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560.
recognize Ramirez as a plaintiff. Because Ramirez is identified as the “representative of Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurants,” (Compl. ¶ 23), Ramirez’s claims would be identical to those of the restaurants. Therefore, even were the Court to recognize Ramirez as a plaintiff, the Court’s standing analysis would apply with equal force to both Ramirez and the restaurants.
6
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

Third, Mexico Lindo alleges the threat of civil liability: If Plaintiff Mexico Lindo Restaurant fires an employee for theft or any other legitimate reason, he will be subject to a claim by the fired employee under § 7 of HB 1804 if one of his employees happens to be undocumented. (Compl. ¶ 27.) This alleged injury is equally conjectural. Mexico Lindo makes no allegation that it currently has within its employ any employee that would trigger the provisions of § 7 should it fire an employee on or after November 1, 2007. In the absence of such an allegation, Mexico Lindo’s claim is simply too speculative to support standing. Because none of the injuries alleged by Mexico Lindo Restaurants survive a Lujan analysis, the restaurant has no standing to bring suit. F. John Doe One John Doe One alleges two injuries. First, John Doe One alleges the threat of selfincrimination: Plaintiff John Doe One will not sign a document, required by Section 8 of HB 1804, attesting to his lawful status, as this violates his rights against self-incrimination. (Compl. ¶ 30.) Presumably John Doe One is alleging that he will be injured at some time after November 1, 2007, because § 8 of HB 1804 requires applicants for certain government programs to sign an affidavit attesting to the applicant’s lawful status.3 John Doe One’s claim, however, ignores the fact that § 8 is not mandatory, and he is under no obligation to sign any affidavit. The obligation only arises should John Doe One seek to obtain certain types of benefits and services from the state of Oklahoma. John Doe One has made no allegation that he has ever received any benefits or services covered by § 8; he makes no allegation that he currently receives benefits or
3The Court is also not convinced that the signing of an affidavit asserting legal status would amount to self-incrimination.
7
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

services covered by § 8; and he makes no allegation that he has any intention of ever seeking any services or benefits covered by § 8 of HB 1804. In the absence of any such allegation, John Doe One’s claim is pure speculation.
Second, John Doe One alleges threat of eviction: Plaintiffs John Does 1,2,3, and 4 [sic] reasonably fear that, if HB 1804 is enforced, they will be evicted from their homes as the landlord may not want to rent to them since renting an apartment or house may be considered “harboring” an “undocumented person” and thus subject the landlord to a possible felony. (Compl. ¶ 38.) The deficiency here is best highlighted by contrasting this alleged injury with the injury alleged in Lozano v. Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007). In Hazelton, the Court found standing, but based upon the concrete nature of the alleged injury: We find that the anonymous plaintiffs have standing to challenge Hazleton's ordinances. They have suffered concrete and particularized injuries which are actual or imminent. These plaintiffs have either been forced from the property which they had rented or had been told by their landlords that they would have to be evicted due to the ordinances. Id. at 497 (emphasis added). The distinction is obvious, in Hazelton, the plaintiffs had alleged the concrete injury needed to support standing. In the present case, there is no allegation that any of the John Does have been evicted, or have been told by their landlord that they will be evicted on November 1, 2007. The alleged injury is simply conjecture, unsupported by any factual allegations that support a finding of “imminent” injury for purposes of standing. Because neither of the injuries alleged by John Doe One survives a Lujan analysis, John Doe One has no standing to bring suit. G. John Doe Two John Doe Two’s only alleged injury is the claim shared with John Doe One. That is, John Doe Two fears eviction by his landlord. (Compl. ¶ 38.) For the same reasons stated in response to
8
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

John Doe One’s claim, this claim fails and John Doe Two has no standing to bring suit. H. John Doe Three
John Doe Three alleges two injuries. First, John Doe Three claims that HB 1804 caused his driver’s license to not be renewed:
Plaintiff John Doe 3 applied for a driver’s license with the State of Oklahoma and the license was denied. Plaintiff was not given any due process opportunities to contest the denial of his license. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is otherwise qualified to hold an Oklhoma [sic] driver’s license except for his undocumented status. (Compl. ¶ 35.) Once again, the Court is confronted with a Plaintiff attempting to causally connect an alleged injury to a provision of HB 1804 that it not yet effective. There is simply no connection between this alleged injury and HB 1804. As of this date, HB 1804 gives no state agency the authority to deny anything based upon immigration status. John Doe Three’s second alleged injury is the claim shared with John Doe’s One and Two. That is, John Doe Three fears eviction by his landlord. (Compl. ¶ 38.) For the same reasons as articulated above, this claim fails. Because neither of the injuries alleged by John Doe Two survives a Lujan analysis, John Doe Three has no standing to bring suit. I. Jane Doe Four Presuming that Jane Doe Four is the “John Doe 4" reference in paragraph 38 of the complaint, Jane Doe Four alleges only a single injury and that injury is the injury shared with John Does One, Two and Three. That is, Jane Doe four fears eviction by her landlord. (Compl. ¶ 38.) For the same reasons as articulated above, this claim fails and Jane Doe Four has no standing to bring suit. J. John Doe Five
9
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

John Doe Five alleges only a single injury: Plaintiff John Doe Five is undocumented and has an Oklahoma driver’s license. Plaintiff John Doe [Five] believes HB 1804 will cause him to lose his driver’s license. (Compl. ¶ 36.) John Doe Five’s allegation, as pleaded, raises absolutely no threat of “imminent” injury. HB 1804 simply requires any agency issuing or renewing a license to inquire into the immigration status of an applicant. Since John Doe Five already has a driver’s license, his fear is that his license will not be renewed at some point in the future. Under Oklahoma law, a driver license is valid for four years from the date of issuance. See Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-101(j). As far as the Court knows, John Doe Five will not be faced with the prospect of renewing his license until the year 2011. If John Doe Five had alleged his license would have to be renewed shortly after November 1, 2007, he would likely have asserted a concrete injury. But by failing to plead an imminent injury, the Court is left with the possibility that the injury alleged will not occur until several years, and legislative sessions, into the future. Such uncertainty simply does not suffice for purposes of standing. Because the injury alleged by John Doe One does not survive a Lujan analysis, John Doe Five has no standing to bring suit.
K. John Doe Six John Doe Six alleges only a single injury: Plaintiff John Doe 6 is currently incarcerated with criminal and immigration charges and believes he has been denied bail because HB 1804 unlawfully denies bail to 10
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

foreign nationals who have not been lawfully admitted. (Compl. ¶ 37.) John Doe Six is correct HB 1804 contains a provision relating to the granting of bail to illegal aliens, but John Doe Six ignores the fact that HB 1804 is not currently the law and thus could not have authorized nor caused the denial of his bail. Thus, John Doe Six’s alleged injury cannot be causally traced to HB 1804.
Because the injury alleged by John Doe Six does not survive a Lujan analysis, John Doe Six has no standing to bring suit.
CONCLUSION The Court has no doubt that Plaintiffs fervently believe in the unconstitutionality of HB 1804. Standing, however, “is not measured by the intensity of the litigant's interest or the fervor of his advocacy. [T]hat concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues is the anticipated consequence of proceedings commenced by one who has been injured in fact; it is not a permissible substitute for the showing of injury itself.” Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United For Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U.S. 464, 486 (1982). The Court’s holding today does not close the courthouse door to those wishing to challenge the constitutional soundness of HB 1804. The Court’s holding is simply the recognition of the lesson learned through cases like Valley Forge: a proper constitutional vetting of any law cannot be achieved without the existence of a plaintiff that has actually been injured by the challenged law. While a constitutional vetting of HB 1804 would serve the interest of all parties to this litigation, the interest of the public would best be served by a sharpening of the issues presented prior to such a vetting. Such a sharpening can only be achieved through a suit brought by Plaintiffs with well-defined injuries causally connected to HB 1804.
11
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

Because no named Plaintiff has Article III standing to bring suit, the Court is without jurisdiction to hear this case. The case is therefore DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
COURTESY OF WWW.BIBDAILY.COM

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC - OKLAHOMA, Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, T-Mac Construction, Inc., Chilino’s Restaurant, John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three, John Doe Four, John Doe Five, John Doe Six, John Doe Seven, Jane Doe One, Jane Doe Two, Jane Doe Three, Jane Doe Four, Jane Doe Five, et al.
Plaintiffs,
v. Brad Henry, Governor of the State of Oklahoma and Drew Edmondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma

Case No.: CIV-07-613-JHP-FHM

AMENDED COMPLAINT
For their Complaint against the Honorable Brad He nry, Governor of the Sta te of Oklahoma, and the Honorable Drew Edm ondson, Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma, (the "State"), Plaintiffs Na tional Coalition of Latino Cler gy, Inc. (CONLAMIC), CONLAMIC- Okla homa, Church Eficaz, C hurch Piedra Angular, TMac Construction, Inc., Chilino’s Restaurant, John Doe One, John Doe Tw o, John Doe Three, John Doe Four, John Doe Five, John Doe Six, John Doe Seven, Jane Doe One, Jane Doe Two, Jane Doe Three, Jane Doe Four, Jane Doe Five, et al., allege as follows:

SUMMARY
1. Plaintiffs bring this case to uphol d and to prevent violations of the Constitution of the United States, the la ws of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma.
2. On or a bout May 8, 2007 the Honorable Brad Henr y, the G overnor of Oklahoma, signed into law HB 1804, a bill pa ssed by the Oklahoma Legislature on or about May 1, 2007 ( hereinafter referred to as "HB 1804"). HB 1804 is attached as Exhibit “A”.
3. HB 1804 violates the United States and Oklahoma constitutions an d federal law. Specifically, HB 1804 vi olates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; Free Exerci se Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights under the United St ates and Oklahoma constitutions; rights against self-incrim ination under the United Stat es and Okl ahoma constitutions; Contracts Clause of the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; separation of powe rs doctrine of the Oklahoma Constitution; and right to bail unde r the Oklahoma Constitution; and 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Fair Housing Act; legitimate police powers under the Oklahoma Constitution; Article 2, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution; and Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution.

4. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)( 9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 violate Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights under the United States and Oklahoma cons titutions; 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the contracts clauses of the United St ates and O klahoma constitutions; legitimate police powers under the Oklahoma Constitution; Article 2, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution; and Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
5. Plaintiffs seek and are entitled to a declaratory judgment and a preliminary and permanent injunction to declare HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) a nd (D), and 6-122 unconstitutional and illegal and to enjoin the Gover nor and the Attorn ey General from enforcing HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE
6. Plaintiff National Coalition of Lati no Clergy and Christian Leaders, (CONLAMIC), is a non profit corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Virginia, with its principal pl ace of business located in Washington, D.C.
7. CONLAMIC is a nationwide organizati on of pastors, including pastors in Oklahoma. CONLAMIC has over 16,000 affiliated churches throughout the

country.
8. CONLAMIC’s mission is to give voi ce and representation to the Latino Christian community nationwide, and to advocate for civil rights and social justice for Latino Christians.
9. In a recent survey by CONLAMIC, it was found that 17% of the pastors who are members of CO NLAMIC are undocumented aliens, and 38% of those pastors’ church members are undocumented
10. There are over 30 pastors in Tulsa County that are members of CONLAMIC.
11. The pastors currently tr ansport church members, including undocumented aliens, from homes to churches. The pa stors also transport c hurch members to run errands. These pastors intend t o continue transporting their members after November 1, 2007. The pastors fear that they will be subject to prosecution under Section 3 of HB 1804 for doing so. Trans portation of church members does not fall under the exception contained in Subsection C of Section 3.
12. Plaintiff CONLAMIC - Oklahoma, is a branch of CONLAMIC.
13. The CONLAMIC-Oklahoma pastors currently transport church members, including undocumented aliens, from homes to churches. The pastors also transport church members to run errands. These pastors intend to continue

transporting their members after November 1, 2007. The pastors fear that they will be subject to prosecution under Section 3 of HB 1804 for doing so.
14. Churches in Oklahoma belonging to CONLAMIC-Oklahoma have many undocumented alien members. These members of CONLAMIC-Oklahoma intend to continue transporting their members after November 1, 2007. The member churches fear that they will be subject to prosecution under Section 3 of HB 1804 for doing so. Transportation of church members does not fall under the exception contained in Subsection C of Section 3.
15. Plaintiff Church Eficaz is a non- profit, 501(c)(3) tax exem pt church, authorized to act as a church under federal law and the laws of Oklahoma.
16. Plaintiff Church Eficaz’ primary function is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before the pas sage of HB 1 804 Church Eficaz ha d approximately 200 members. Its me mbership has n ow dwindled to a pproximately 100 members, as a result of the fear caus ed by HB 1804’s passage they assume that many of the church members who left are undocumented.
17. Plaintiff Church Eficaz has m any undocumented alien members. HB 1804 has created great hostility towards the Latino community in Oklahoma and therefore adversely affects the work Church Eficaz performs in Oklahoma and for Oklahoma residents.
18. Church Eficaz’ membership and co nstituency (herein, collectively

“members”) includes individuals – ma ny but not all of whom are Latino – who reside and w ho are em ployed in and around Tul sa, some of whom have school-aged children. The m embership includes persons w ho have Spanish as their native tongue with a limited proficiency in English.
19. Church Eficaz intends to continue to provide services to all its church members, including but not lim ited to transporting them to different locations. Church Eficaz fears they will be subject to numerous felonies if they continue to transport individua ls, who happen to be undocumented, after November 1, 2007. C hurch Eficaz does not plan to alter the services they provide after November 1, 2007.
20. The interests Church Eficaz se eks to protect through this action ar e germane to its pur pose, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested herein require the persona l participation of Church Eficaz’ members.
21. Plaintiff Church Eficaz’ pastor, Ju lian Rodriguez, has m inistered to hundreds of church m embers for over nine years. Since passage of H B 1804, he has visited the jails and fo und numerous instances of indivi duals who believed they we re stopped by lo cal Oklahoma police because they appeared “Latino” or otherwise “foreign”.
22. Pastor Julian has ministered in the jails for over four m onths and has never

seen as many detained La tino immigrants as he has s een after passage of HB 1804. Pastor Julian believes that the local Oklahoma police have been emboldened by the la nguage of HB 1804 , especially in light of s tatements made by he bill’s author, Oklahoma State Rep. Randy Terrill – “It would be just fine with me if we exported all illegal aliens to the s urrounding states.” See enclosed Exhibit “B ”, September 26, 2007 US A Today newspaper article.
23. Such statement presumes that the State of Oklahom a has the right to “export” (sic) aliens to other states. Not only is it a federal function to deport, or otherwise regulate immigra tion, but contrary to Rep. Terrill’s wishes, they cannot be deported or “ex ported” to other surrounding states, only to their country of origin.
24. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular’ primar y function is to pr omote the gospel of Jesus Christ. Before the passage of HB 1804 Church Piedra Angular had approximately 400 members. It has lost at least 40 member s as a result of the fear caused by HB 1804’s passage . Leaders of Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular assume that many of the churc h members who left the c hurch are undocumented.
25. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular has m any undocumented alien mem bers. HB 1804 has created great hostility towards the Latino community in

Oklahoma and therefore adversely affect s the work Church Piedra Angular performs in Oklahoma and for Oklahoma residents.
26. Church Piedra Angular’s member ship and constituency (herein, collectively “members”) includes individuals – many but not all of whom are Latino – who resi de and who are employed in and around Tulsa, some of whom have school-aged children . The membershi p includes persons who have Spanish as their nati ve tongue with a limite d proficiency in English.
27. Church Piedra Angular inte nds to continue to pr ovide services to all its church members, including but not limited to transporting them to different locations. Church Piedra Angular fears they will be subject to numerous felonies if they continue to tran sport individuals, who ha ppen to be undocumented, after November 1, 20 07. Church Piedra Angular does not plan to alter the services they provide after November 1, 2007.
28. The interests Church Piedra Angular seeks to protect through this action are germane to its pur pose, and neither the claims asserted nor the relief requested herein require the persona l participation of Church Piedra Angular’ members.
29. Plaintiffs CONLAMIC, CONLAMIC-Oklahoma, Church Eficaz and Church Piedra Angular Church are collectively referred to herein as

“Plaintiff Churches.”
30. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular has four employees. It fully complies with federal law in all of its hiring procedures.
31. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular is aware that federal law does not require an employer to participate in any of the programs which, according to Section 6 of HB 1804, constitute a “Status Verification System.” The programs listed in Sec tion 6 are vol untary and are not required by federal law.
32. If HB 1804 had not been enacted, Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular would not enroll in or use a ny of the pr ograms designated a “Status Verification System” by Section 6 HB 1804 because participation in such pr ograms is burdensome and tim e consuming. On November 1, 2007, however, Plaintiff will enroll in and begin to use a “Status Verification System” in order to insulate itself from the strict liability created by Section 7 of HB 1804.
33. Participation in a Status Verification System after Novem ber 1, 2007 is necessitated by HB 1804, because acc ording to Sec tion 7, if Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular fires an empl oyee for theft or any other legitimate reason, it will be subject to a discrimi nation claim by the fired employee if another employee happens to be undo cumented. Plaintiff would be subject

to the laws uit in that ca se despite the fact that its management properly complies with all federal laws and regulations pertaining to employment.
34. Participation in a Status Verificati on System will be burdensome and time consuming for Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular.
35. Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular, as of November 1, 2007, will continue to follow federal immig ration and tax law but will require independent contractors to show proof of lawful status, unless otherwise ordered by this court.
36. Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, I nc. has approximately 30-35 employees. It fully complies with federal law in all of its hiring procedures.
37. Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. is aware that federal law does not require an employer to participate in any of the programs which, according to Section 6 of HB 1804, constitute a “Status Verification System.” The programs listed in Sec tion 6 are vol untary and are not required by federal law.
38. If HB 1804 had not been enacted, Plai ntiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. would not enroll in or use a ny of the pr ograms designated a “Status Verification System” by Section 6 HB 1804 because participation in such pr ograms is burdensome and tim e consuming. On November 1, 2007, however, Plaintiff will enroll in and begin to use a “Status Verification System” in

order to insulate itself from the strict liability created by Section 7 of HB 1804.
39. Participation in a Status Verification System after November 1, 2007 is necessitated by HB 1804, because according to Sec tion 7, if Plai ntiff TMac Construction, Inc. fires an empl oyee for theft or a ny other legitimate reason, it will be subject to a discrimi nation claim by the fired employee if another employee happens to be undo cumented. Plaintiff would be subject to the laws uit in that ca se despite the fact that its management properly complies with all federal laws and regulations pertaining to employment.
40. Participation in a Status Verificati on System will be burdensome and time consuming for Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc..
41. Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc., as of November 1, 2007, will continue to follow federal immigration and ta x law but will require indepe ndent contractors to show proof of lawful status, unless otherwise ordered by this court.
42. Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. al so owns four rental pr operties. Because of HB 1804, Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. will no longer rent the properties to undocumented aliens, but has been unable to find tenants. T-Mac Construction, Inc. has therefore lost revenue as a direct result of H B 1804.

43. Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant has approximately 400 e mployees. It fully complies with federal law in all of its hiring procedures.
44. Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant has entered into at least one contract with the State of Oklahoma for a catering job.
45. Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant is aware that federal law does not require an employer to participate in any of the programs which, according to Section 6 of H B 1804, c onstitute a “Status Verificati on System.” The program s listed in Section 6 are voluntary and are not required by federal law.
46. If HB 1804 had not be en enacted, Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant would not enroll in or use any of the progra ms designated a “Status Verification System” by Section 6 HB 1804 because participation in such pr ograms is burdensome and tim e consuming. On November 1, 2007, however, Plaintiff will enroll in and begin to use a “Status Verification System” in order to insulate itself from the strict liability created by Section 7 of HB 1804. Also, Section 7 require s that anyone c ontracting with a public employer must use a Status Verification System.
47. Participation in a Status Verification System after November 1, 2007 is necessitated by HB 1804, because acc ording to Sec tion 7, if Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant fires an employe e for theft or any other legitimate reason, it will be subject to a discrimi nation claim by the fired employee if

another employee happens to be undo cumented. Plaintiff would be subject to the laws uit in that ca se despite the fact that its management properly complies with all federal laws and regulations pertaining to employment.
48. Participation in a Status Verificati on System will be burdensome and time consuming for Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant.
49. Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant, as of November 1, 2007, will continue to follow federal immig ration and tax law but will require independent contractors to show proof of lawful status, unless otherwise ordered by this court.
50. Plaintiff Chilino’s Restaurant fears loss of revenue as a result of HB 1804.
51. Plaintiffs Church Piedra Angular, T- Mac Construction, Inc. and C hilino’s Restaurant will hereby be referred to as “Employer Plaintiffs”. Unless HB 1804 is permanently enjoined and declared invalid, the Employer Plaintiffs will have to participate in a burd ensome and time cons uming Status Verification System.
52. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is a resident of O klahoma. He has lived i n Oklahoma for over five years. He is originally from Mexico.
53. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is an undocumented alien.
54. Plaintiff John D oe 1 applied for a dr iver’s license with the State of

Oklahoma and the license was denied. Plaintiff was not give n any due process opportunities to contest the de nial of his license. Plaintiff John Doe 1 is ot herwise qualified to hold an Oklahoma driver’s license except for his undocumented status.
55. Plaintiff John D oe 1 was denie d a dr iver license because 47 O. S. § 6103(A)(9) provides that driver licenses may not be issued to undocumented aliens.
56. Plaintiff John Doe 2 and Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 are husba nd and wife. They are both undocumented aliens.
57. Plaintiffs John Doe 2 an d Jane Doe 1 were qualified for and received food stamps in 2001 whe n Plaintiff John Doe 2 was hurt on the job, and Medicaid when Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 was hospitalized for the births of their four daughters.
58. Plaintiffs John Doe 2 an d Jane Doe 1 are qualified for and intend to seek further public benefits after November 1, 2007.
59. Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 possesses a n Oklahoma driver license. The license expires in March, 2008. Because of se ction 4 of HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-115 and 6-122, she will be unable to renew her dr iver license in March, 2008.

60. Plaintiff John Doe 3 has been a resident of Oklahoma for (3) three years. He is originally from Guatemala.
61. He is a resident of Okl ahoma City and has been a tenant in Oklahoma City for (3) three years.
62. Plaintiff John Doe 3 is an undocumented alien.
63. Plaintiff John Doe 3 recently receive d an eviction notice from his landlord in which his landlord specifically c ites the effectuation of H B 1804 on November 1, 2007 as the reason w hy she is requiring t hat John Doe 3 provide her with a valid driver license and a valid United States social security number in order for him to be allowed to continue to rent from her.
64. Plaintiff John Doe 3 has a cont ract with his landlord for (1) one year. However, after (4) m onths of tenancy sh e not only threaten ed to evict him should he not provi de the above-mentioned documentation, but also came to the premises and physically threaten ed to throw him out of the house he rents if he did not show her the above-mentioned documentation.
65. Plaintiff Jane Doe 2, Plaintiff Jane Doe 3 and Plaintiff Jane Doe 4 are citizens of Guatemala, residents of Oklahoma City and undocum ented aliens.
66. Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 and Jane Doe 4 signed a one-year residential lease.

67. After they had lived in the premises for approxim ately four m onths, Jane Doe 2, Jane Doe 3 and Ja ne Doe 4 were asked by their landlord to leave because of HB 1804.
68. Plaintiff John Doe 4 is a citizen of Guatemala, a resident of Oklahoma City and an undocumented alien.
69. John Doe 4 signed a one-year residential lease.
70. After John Doe 4 had been livi ng in the premises for nine m onths, he received an eviction notice from his la ndlords in which they specifically cite the effectuation of HB 1804 on November 1, 2007 as the reason wh y they are requiring that John Doe 4 provide them with a valid drive r license and a valid United States social secur ity number in order for him to be allowed to continue to rent from them.
71. Plaintiff John Doe 5 is a citizen of Guatemala, a resident of Oklahoma City and an undocumented alien.
72. John Doe 5 signed a one-year residential lease.
73. After John Doe 5 had lived in the premises for seven t o eight months, he was asked by his landlord to leave because of HB 1804.
74. Plaintiff John Doe 6 and Plaintiff Ja ne Doe 5 are citizens of Guatemala, residents of Oklahoma City and undocumented aliens.

75. John Doe 6 and Jane Doe 5 signed a one-year resi dential lease. When they signed the lease, they were asked for no proof of identity.
76. After John Doe 6 a nd Jane Doe 5 had lived in the premises for almost four months, they received an eviction noti ce from their landlords in which the landlords specifically cite the eff ectuation of HB 1804 on N ovember 1, 2007 as the reason why they are requiri ng that John Doe 6 and Jane Doe 5 provide them with valid driver licen ses and valid United States social security numbers in order for John Do e 6 and Jane Doe 5 to be allowe d to continue to rent from the landlords.
77. Plaintiff John Doe 7 is a citizen of Guatemala, a resident of Oklahoma City and an undocumented alien. He has two U.S. citizen children.
78. John Doe 7 received an eviction notice from his landlords in whic h the landlords specifically cite the eff ectuation of HB 1804 on N ovember 1, 2007 as the reason why they are requi ring that John Do e 7 provi de them with a valid driver license and a valid United States social security number in order for John Doe 7 to be allowed to continue to rent from them.
79. Plaintiffs John D oe 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 a nd 7 a nd Jane Doe 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 are collectively referred to herein as “Individual Plaintiffs.”
80. The Individual Plaintiffs, as of November 1, 2007, will not require proof of documentation from those who visit th eir homes and/or ride i n their

vehicles. The Individual Plaintiffs are undocumented but otherwise qualify as Oklahoma residents, to obtain a driver’s license.
81. Plaintiffs fear that if, after Novemb er 1, 2007, the y are arrested for violation of Section 3 of HB 1804, a felo ny, they will be denied bail pursuant to Section 5 of HB 1804.
82. Individual Plaintiffs wh o have received eviction notices reasonably fear difficulty in finding housing as a direct result of HB 1804.
83. The Individual Plaintiffs, Employer Plaintiffs, and Plaintiff Churc hes have suffered or will suffer as a result of HB 1804’s unconstitutional an d otherwise illegal provisions as set out in counts 1 thru 15 infra.
84. At all times alleged herein, Oklahoma officials, employees and agents were acting under color of state law.
85. Defendant Brad He nry is the G overnor of the State of O klahoma (the “Governor”). He is named herein as a Defenda nt in his capacity as Governor.
86. Defendant Drew Edm onson is the At torney General of the State of Oklahoma (the “Attorney General”). He is named herein as a Defenda nt in his capacity as Attorney General.
87. Each Plaintiff and the members and/or shareholders of each Plaintiff are

affected by the actions of the State of Oklahoma in e nacting into law H B 1804.
88. Each Plaintiff has standing to sue in this action.
89. The Supremacy Clause, due pr ocess, right against s elf-incrimination and equal protection claims of Plaintiffs arise under the Constitution a nd laws of the United States. As a result, Plaintiffs have a right to sue arising under 4 2 U.S.C. § 1983.
90. This Court has jurisdiction over the Supremacy Clause, due process, right against self-incrimination and equal protection claims of Plaintiffs purs uant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because they arise under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
91. This Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
92. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
93. Pursuant to 28 U. S.C. §§ 2201-2202, t he Court m ay issue a declaratory judgment and further necessary or proper relief.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CLAIMS
94. On or about Ma y 8, 2007 , the Honorable Brad Henr y, the Governor of Oklahoma, signed into law HB 1804, a bill pa ssed by the Oklahoma Legislature on or about May 1, 2007.
95. HB 1804 creates a state felony for a ny person w ho, "knowingly or in reckless disregard of the fact" of an alien’s illegal status, transports, harbors, or conceals any undocumented immigrant.
96. HB 1804 places new responsibilities o n certain agencies that issue identification documents. The bill provides that federal, state, and local government agencies, and in s ome cases public schools or state or private educational institutions, shall only i ssue identification documents to US citizens, legal permanent residents, or other immigrants with lawful status demonstrated by specified “valid do cumentary evidence.” Furthermore, HB 1804 states that if the Depa rtment of Public Safety (“DPS”) is notified by a local, state, or a federal gove rnment agency indicating reasonabl e suspicion that an individual is unlaw fully present, then DPS m ay not issue even a renewed, duplicated or reissu ed driver's license without verifying that individual’s legal status by specified “valid documentary evidence.”
97. HB 1804 requires that ja il authorities determine the immigration status of persons charged with a felony or with driving under the influence. The bill

states that “[i]f verification of lawful status cannot be m ade from documents in the possession of the pr isoner, verification shall be m ade within forty-eight (48) hours thro ugh a query to th e Law Enforcement Support Center of t he United States Department of Homeland Security or other office or agenc y designated for that purpose by the U nited States Department of Homeland Security”; and in the event that legal status is not verified, the bill states that the o fficer must report th e inmate to the Department of Hom eland Security. It further provides that a foreign national who has not been la wfully admitted is presumed to be a flight risk for bond purposes.
98. HB 1804 will require public employers to register with and utilize a Status Verification System to determine th e federal em ployment authorization status of all new em ployees. It will also extend th e requirement to participate in the Status Verification System to entities which contract or subcontract with a public em ployer for the physical performance of services within the State of Ok lahoma. The bill will make it a discriminatory practice for an employer to discharge a United States citizen or permanent resident alien while retain ing an unauthorized alien in certain circumstances.
99. HB 1804 will deny federal, state or local public benefits to persons over the age of fourteen who are unable to verify their lawful status.

100. HB 1804 will require th at, in certain circumstances, contracting entities withhold a contractor’s state income tax at th e maximum rate if th e contractor fails to verify employment authorization.
101. HB 1804 directs the Atto rney General to negotiate, and the G overnor and Attorney General to sign, a memora ndum of understa nding between the State of Oklahoma and the Departme nt of Justice and Depart ment of Homeland Security c oncerning, among other things, the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The bill pr ohibits agencies and local authorities from preventing t he communication of information regarding an individual’s unlawful status to the Department of Homeland Security.
102. HB 1804 will restrict th e ability of undocumented a liens to obtain in-state tuition benefits for post-secondary education.
103. HB 1804 in essence creates a new stat e mechanism to interpret and enforce federal immigration law, which is prohibited by t he United States Constitution.
104. Although the law is not to take e ffect until November 1, 2007, it has already been the subject of countless media reports in both t he English and Spanish-speaking press, and has se rved as a catalyst for increased enforcement efforts by local and state authorities as well as numerous cases of racial profiling.

105. The law's increasi ng notoriety in many Lati no communities has scared families into keeping their children home from school. This partic ular fear was caused by media coverage of certain legislators’ initial attempt unconstitutionally to restrict access to public scho ols to only those children with US citizenship, lawf ul permanent residency or other type of legal status. After the ill-informed legisl ators were made aware that Supreme Court case law clearly protects th e rights of all children t o attend elementary through high school, regard less of their immigration status, this provision was removed from the final bill. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). Neverthel ess, the harm had be en done, a s immigrant parents throughout the state have decided not to send their children to school.
106. On September 5, 2007, five members of the Okla homa House of Representatives addressed a letter to the Attorney General requesting his opinion on a num ber of issues relati ng to HB 1804 and questioning the constitutionality of HB 1804. The lette r is attached as Exhibit “C”, and incorporated herein by reference.
107. The city of Hazelton, Penn sylvania’s recent attemp t to also regulate and interpret federal immigration law was soundly rebuffed by a federal district court. See Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007). Although many of the i ssues in the case at bar are different tha n those in Lozano, and will be subsequently delineated throughout the

complaint, the underlying premise applies to both matters, and numerous attempts by municipalities and states throughout the country to create new immigration categories - such attemp ts are pre-em pted by the S upremacy Clause. See eg. LULAC v. Wilson, 908 F. Supp. 755 (C.D. Cal. 1995).
108. Conflicts with Federal Law’s Benefit Eligibility Requirements . HB 1804 requires state and local agen cies to verify the lawful presence of individuals over the age of 14 w ho apply for federal, state or local public benefits. It requires applicants to verify that they are bot h a “qualified” alien and “lawfully present” in the U.S. This requirement fails to track federal law, which allows additional groups of immigr ants to secure such benefits, and which doesn’t utilize age 14 for benefits eligibility verification purposes.
109. The bill requires participation in a “S tatus Verification System,” the most likely component of which is the Basi c Pilot Program. Federal law does not require participation in any such program. Federal imm igration law expressly regulates the employment and hiring of unauthorized workers and the Basic Pilot program is not required under current federal law. State bills that require the use of the Basic Pilot Pr ogram therefore are preem pted by federal law because they attempt to re gulate immigration and legis late in a field that has been occupied by the federal government.

110. The bill also creates a new private ca use of action against an employer for

any U.S. citizen or lawf ul permanent resident w ho is discharged and can

show that the employer re tained an una uthorized worker. This provision

would protect an employee who was terminated for cause and w ould reward

him or her for the criminal acts that

caused the termination, such as

embezzlement, theft, arson or assault on a fellow employee.

111. The new cause of action will caus e turmoil. Discharged employees and their lawyers will have the right to confiden tial employee records to try to prove that an undocumented alien was retained.

112. Former employees terminated for caus e will be likely to sue their former employers under the new cause of action for knowi ngly retaining an unauthorized alien.

113. The new cause of action is likely to le ad to discrimination against potential employees who appear to be of foreign national origin.

114. The new cause of action is based upon strict liability and does not require intent, knowledge, recklessness, or even a negligent state of mind.

115. In order to avoid liability under the new cause of action, an employer wh o does not participate in a Stat us Verification System must either retain all employees, regardless of their m isconduct, or discharge all employees in the

event that, despite the employer’s be st efforts to verify employment authorization, one employee might be an undocumented alien.
116. Require State Determinations Re garding Compliance with Federal Immigration Law. The bill makes sheltering or moving an immigrant who may have entered or remained in the U.S. while undocumented a state crime. This requires a state determination that an indi vidual entered the U.S. i n violation of federal immigration law. The federal government, not the states, has this power. The state determination could conflict with the way that the federal government interprets immigra tion law or with other foreign poli cy considerations.
117. 47 O.S. § 6-103(A)(9) provides that dr iver licenses may not be issued to undocumented aliens.
118. 47 O.S. § 6-106(B)(10) provides that applicants for a dr iver license must indicate whether they are eligible for a license and not prohibited by 47 O.S. § 6-103(A)(9) from obtaining a license.
119. 47 O.S. § 6-114( A) prohibits the issu ance of a replacement license to undocumented aliens.
120. 47 O.S. § 6-115(A) and ( D) provide that an alien’s driver license expires at the expiration of his or her doc umentation, and that a renewed license will only be valid until the expiration of his or her documentation.

121. 47 O.S. § 6-122 pr ovides that undoc umented aliens m ay not re new their driver licenses by mail.
122. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relie f. They have a strong likelihood of success on the merits and will suffer i rreparable harm if HB 1804 and 4 7 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not enjoined and are en forced against Plaintiffs, an d other individuals, organizations, and employers in Oklahoma.
123. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable ha rm as a result of the potential enforcement of HB 1804 a nd have suffered irreparable harm as a result of the enforcement of 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-10 6(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
124. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover their costs and attorneys' fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATIONS OF SUPREMACY CLAUSE OF U.S. CONSTITUTION AND PRE-
EMPTION BY FEDERAL LAW
125. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
126. Article VI, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution states, “This Constitution,

and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or whic h shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the s upreme Law of the Land; and the Judge s in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thin g in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
127. Under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, federal law may expressly or implicitly pre-empt state and local laws.
128. In accordance with its ex clusive power over matters of immigration, the U.S. Congress has adopte d, pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., a com prehensive system of laws, regulations, and procedures and has cr eated administrative agen cies that determine, subject to judicial review, whether an d under what conditions an individual may enter, stay in, and work in the U.S. and a system of civil and criminal penalties for those violating the law, including employe rs who knowingly employ unauthorized aliens.
129. When enacting the Immigratio n Reform and Control Act, Congress expressly pre-empted state and local laws. The Im migration Reform and Control Act provides, in part, as fo llows: "[Federal law] pre-empts any state or local law imposing similar crim inal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ unauthorized aliens." [8

U.S.C. § 1324a (h) (2)].
130. Title 8, Section 1188(h)(2) explicitly provides that portions of the same title “preempt any State or lo cal law regulating admissi bility of nonim migrant workers.”
131. The immigration laws, procedures, and policies created by t he federal government regulate im migration and confer rights in a careful balance reflecting the national interest.
132. Congress carefully balanced the re quirements and penalties in federal immigration law with consideration of the tension that immigration compliance and sanctions might cause relating to race, national origin, an d citizenship discrimination.
133. The Constitution bars the State from a ltering or obstructing the federal government's carefully crafted comprehensive immigration regime.
134. HB 1804 threatens the uniformity and primacy of the federal imm igration system and conflicts with federal immigration law.
135. HB 1804 stands as an obstacle to th e uniform enforcement and application of federal im migration laws and th e comprehensive regime created by Congress.
136. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, violates the

Supremacy Clause because it is pree mpted by feder al legislation an d because it requires persons other than those empowered by federal law and who have no particular kn owledge or training in the area to assess the immigration status of other persons.
137. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will am end 21 O.S. § 1550. 42, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is pree mpted by feder al legislation an d because it requires persons other than those empowered by federal law and who have no particular kn owledge or training in the area to assess the immigration status of other pers ons. Section 4 also pur ports to regulate federal government agencies in a manner which will interfere with the government’s ability to carry out its federal function.
138. Section 4 exceeds the requirem ents of the REAL ID Act of 2005 and contradicts it because Sec tion 4 applies to m ultiple forms of identification, while the REAL ID Act of 2005 applie s only to driver licenses and state identification cards.
139. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by f ederal legislation and because the detention it may authorize exceeds that authorized by 8 U.S.C. § 1252c.
140. Sections 6 and 7 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. §§ 1312

and 1313, violate the Supremacy Clause because they are preempted by federal legislation.
141. The licensing exception to the preemption clause c ontained in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) was designed and i ntended to allow state governments to take action against the bus iness license for employers "found to have violated the sanctions pr ovision" of 8 U. S.C. § 1324a—essentially only after the employer had bee n found by the federal government to have viol ated the federal law.
142. The licensing exception to the preemption clause in 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(2) does not allow states to pass la ws prohibiting th e employment of unauthorized aliens, or the ability to de fine who actually are unauthorized aliens.
143. The federal gover nment has e nacted broad, comprehensive immigration laws that govern who is eligible to work in the Unite d States and that govern the process by which employers must verify the eligibility of job applicants.
144. The federal government has occ upied the field of im migration regulation through the Immigration and Nationality Act and the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("I RCA"), including occupying the field relating to prohibiting the em ployment of unauthorized workers and verifying the

eligibility of job applicants.
145. Federal law governs the docum ents that employers must accept to m ake employment decisions regarding whether persons are authorized to work in this country.
146. Federal law prohibits employers from conducting any further investigation or taking a ny steps ot her than revi ewing the docum ents that employees have the right, under federal law, to present to an employer
147. Once an employee has satisfied the veri fication requirements of 8 U.S.C. § 1324a, employers are barred by fe deral law from seeking additional information.
148. Federal law prohibits employers from making additional inquiries, conducting additional investigations, or taking additional steps to determine an applicant's or employee' s eligibility to work in this country other than having examined the original documents that the e mployee elected to present and, if the employer voluntarily enters into an agreement, to utilize the Basic Pilot Program.
149. The federal government has failed to issue tam per-proof and forgery-proof forms of identification to persons that employers may rely upon to confirm with accuracy and reliability the id entity of a person or the person' s eligibility to work in the United States.

150. The State of Oklahoma has failed to issue tamper-proof and forgery-proof documents establishing the identity of residents of the State of Oklahoma.
151. Federal immigration law and federa l employment discrimination laws prohibit employers from taking action to refuse to hire or discharge employees based upon their citizenship, national origin, race, color or other classifications protected by law.
152. HB 1804 imposes penalties on employers for state regulated immigration enforcement measures beyond and di fferent than what the federa l government requires.
153. Subsection C of section 7, w hich provides that it is a discriminatory practice to discharge a United States citizen or perm anent resident alien employee while retaining an unauthor ized alien em ployee under certain circumstances, is preempted by IRCA. It is inconsistent with the uniform enforcement of federal imm igration law and Congress has already acted, through IRCA, to occupy the field regarding controlling the employment of aliens.
154. The federal government does not require employers to use the Employment Eligibility Verification System (Basic Pilot Program). It is a strictly voluntary program, except in t he few cases where the government requires employers that violated the employment verification laws to use the Basic

Pilot Program as part of a settlement with the federal government.
155. The fact that the federal government does not require em ployers to use the Basic Pilot Program evid ences the federal intent that the Basic Pilot Program remain voluntary and that employers are not to be requir ed to use the Basic Pilot Program.
156. The fact that the federal government does not require em ployers to use the Social Security Num ber Verification Service evidences the federal intent that the Social Security Number Veri fication Service remain voluntary and that employers are not to be required to use the Social Security Number Verification Service.
157. The State of O klahoma does not ha ve the authority to require employers that do business with the State of Oklahoma to use the Basic Pilot Program, which is the component of the “Status Verification System” most likely to be used, or the Social Security Number Verification Service, and its attempt to do so is preempted by federal law.
158. HB 1804 will place burde ns on the Executive Branch of the federal government including the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security, and Social Security Administration, that will impede the functions of those agencies.
159. By requiring that every employer use a “Status Verification System” which

is most likely to invo lve the Basic Pilot Prog ram, HB 1804 places an impermissible burden on the Executive Branch of the federal government, including the Social S ecurity Administration and t he Department of Homeland Security, who currently do not have the resources to successfully absorb hundreds of Okla homa users into the Basic Pilot Program, which currently has approximately 17,000 companies enrolled and onl y half that many that actively use the program.
160. Section 7 also violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preempted by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The stri ct liability Section 7 seeks to impose upon employers is inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which does not impos e strict liability for employment discrimination.
161. Section 8 of HB 1804, whic h will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is pree mpted by feder al legislation an d because it purports to regulate the provis ion of federal public benefits in a manner which will interfere with the g overnment’s ability to carry out its federal function. By creating an exception for certain programs “in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the U nited States Attorney General after consultation with [certain] appropriate federal agencies and departments[,]” Section 8 also pur ports to regulate discretionary acts of the Attorne y General in such a way as to interfere with the government’s ability to carry

out its federal function.
162. The bill requires employers to withhold in come tax at the top marginal income tax rate from the compensation of an indepe ndent contractor if the contractor fails to provide “ documentation to ver ify the i ndependent contractor’s employment authorization . . . .” Em ployers who fail to do so are subject to a penalty equal to t he amount they should have withheld under this bill, unless the employer is exempt from withholding by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) pursuant to IRS Form 8233.
163. For purposes of fede ral tax com pliance, the IRS distinguishes between “resident aliens” and “nonresident alie ns,” which is based on w hether the individual meets either the “green card test” or “substantial presence test”. Form 8233 only applies to nonresident aliens and is, therefore, most likely inapplicable here.
164. The SSA has estimated that 17.8 million of its reco rds contain discrepancies related to name, date of birth, or citi zenship status. The bill’s provision is likely to cause confusion among employers where the state is requiring them to do something that conflicts with the IRS guidance.
165. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, violates the Supremacy Clause because it is preem pted by federal legislation, an d because, by directing the United St ates Department of Justice and

Department of Hom eland Security to negotiate and sign a “Mem orandum of Understanding” with the State of Ok lahoma, it also pur ports to regulate the discretionary acts officers of the United States Departm ent of Justice and Department of H omeland Security in such a way as to interfere with the government’s ability to carry out its federal function.
166. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law.
167. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST
AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
168. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
169. The religious beliefs CON LAMIC, CONLAMIC-Oklahoma Church Plaintiffs and the members of each are sincerely held.
170. Transporting church members, including undocumented alien members, to religious services is central to the religious beliefs and practices of the

above-named Plaintiffs’ religion.
171. Section 3 of HB 1804 places a substan tial burden on obser vation of these central beliefs and practices.
172. No compelling governmental interest justifies this burden.
173. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as applied to the State of Oklahoma through t he Fourteenth Amendment.
174. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE TO
VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH
175. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
176. HB 1804 is void for va gueness because persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application.

177. HB 1804 is void for overbreadth because it reaches a substantial am ount of constitutionally protected conduct.
178. Association, religious exercise, travel , education of one ’s children as one chooses, contract, pursuit of livelihood, working for a living and enjoyment of property are constitutionally protected conduct.
179. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, is unconstitutionally vague because it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes transporting, moving or attemptin g to transport an undocumented alien “in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States.”
180. Section 3 is also uncons titutionally vague because it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes conc ealing, harboring or sheltering an undocumented alien from detection.
181. The state-of-mind elements of knowledge or reckless disregard contained in Section 3 appl y only to a defendant’s state of m ind with re gard to t he unlawful presence of an alien; these elements do not a pply with regard to the acts of transporting, m oving or attempting to transport, or to the acts of concealing, harboring, or sheltering from detection.
182. Section 3 is unconstituti onally vague because if fails to specify what documentation or proof on the pa rt of the alien would suffice to pr event a

person transporting, moving, attempting to transport, concealing, harboring, or sheltering the alien from doing these activities with knowledge or reckless disregard for the alien’s unlawful presence.
183. Section 3 could be construed to forbid activities including but not limited to permitting a person to ride in one’s vehicle or enter onto one’s property as a house guest, religious worshiper or tenant, unless one knows that the person is lawfully present in th e United States. This section of HB 1804 is thus unconstitutionally overbroad because it reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct includ ing but not limited to association, religious exercise, travel, educat ion of one’s children as one c hooses, contract, pursuit of liv elihood, working for a liv ing and e njoyment of property.
184. Section 5 of HB 1804, wh ich will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, is unconstitutionally vague be cause it fails to specify what docum ents or proof are needed in order to “determine the citizen ship status” or “lawful immigration status” of a prisone r or “verify that t he prisoner ha s been lawfully admitted to the United States . . . .”
185. Section 5 is also unconstitutionally va gue because it fails to specify whether, in the even t that “verification of lawf ul status cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner,” the prisoner must

remain incarcerated for the s pecified 48 hours within which verification must be made.
186. Sections 6 and 7 are unconstitutionally vague because they fail to specify what constitutes an “independent, thir d-party system w ith an equal or higher degree of reliability as the programs, systems, or processes described in this par agraph [Section 6, S ubsection 1]”; which would insulate an employer from strict liability under Section 7.
187. Section 7 is unconstitutionally vague b ecause it fails to specify what it means to “utilize,” participate in” or “use” a Status Verification System.
188. The vague and overbroad language of HB 1804 viol ates the due process rights of all Plaintiffs.
189. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates th e due process clause of the U.S. Constitution on account of vagueness and overbreadth.
190. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS UNDER THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

DUE TO VAGUENESS AND OVERBREADTH
191. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
192. For the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs’ cause of action for vi olation of due process under the U.S. Constitution due to vagueness, HB 1804 is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad.
193. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates Artic le 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution on account of vagueness and overbreadth.
194. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS UNDER THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION
195. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
196. Under the Fourteenth Ame ndment to the U.S. Cons titution, state and local governments are prohibited from arbitrarily and capri ciously depriving a

person of a fundamental right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

197. Undocumented aliens, including Pl aintiffs, are persons entitled to fundamental rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

198. Plaintiffs have funda mental rights to associate with whomever Plaintiffs choose, to travel, to contract, to pursue a livelihood, to work for a living, to liberty, to life, and to property.

199. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 21 O.S. § 446, infringes on Individual Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Churches’ fundamental right to associate with whomever these Plai ntiffs choose to associ ate because it in effect prohibits people from permitting the pres ence of undocumented aliens in their vehicles or on their property.

200. Section 3 infringes on I ndividual Plaintiffs’ and Plaintiff Churches’

fundamental right to travel because it prohibits people from transporting,

moving or attempting to trans port undocumented aliens, or from

concealing, harboring or s heltering them on “any . . . m eans of

transportation . . . .” This provisio n will have a chilling effect on the

willingness of individuals and common carriers to transport undocumented

aliens, and will thus in effect dr

astically restrict the freedom of

undocumented aliens to travel.

201. Section 3 i nfringes on Indivi dual Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to contract

because it will have a chilling effect on the ability of undo cumented aliens to rent or lease property and to purchase tickets on common carriers.
202. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will am end 21 O.S. § 1550.42, infringes on Individual Plaintiffs’ fundamental ri ght to travel because it will prevent undocumented aliens fro m obtaining driver licen ses and therefore from driving motor vehicles without fear of prosecution.
203. Section 4 is not reasonably related to any legitimate state objective because it is likely to encourage undocumented aliens to drive without licenses. The provision will therefore contribute to reckless driving, driving under the influence and disregard of the ru les of traffic, because penalties like suspension and revocation of driver licenses will no longer have any conceivable effect on undocumented a liens who will no longer be able to obtain driver licenses in the first pl ace. The bill will thus increase the “lawlessness” decried its section 2.
204. Section 5 of HB 1804, whic h will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, infringes on Individual Plaintiffs’ fundam ental right to liberty because it coul d be interpreted to mandate inca rceration of a per son for up to 48 hours simply because he or she is unable to verify “lawful status.”
205. Sections 6 and 7 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 25 O.S. §§ 1312 and 1313, infringe on Empl oyer Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to travel, to

property, to contract, to pursue a livelihood and to work for a living.
206. Section 8 of HB 1804, which will be co dified as 56 O.S. § 71 infringes o n Individual Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to life because it drastically impedes the access of undocumented aliens to health care. While it permits the receipt of public benefits for “emergency medical contition[s],” it creates an exception for or gan transplants. Often pe ople in need of health care do not know whether their medi cal condition is an “emergency” or not; the requirement that an alien sign an affidavit under penalty of perjur y in order to obtain pub lic benefits for health care will present many undocumented aliens with the catch-22 of forgoi ng the public benefits necessary to obtain medical care fo r possible em ergency conditions, or facing prosecution for making out a false affidavit. The provision denie s public benefits which would e nable aliens to receive life-saving or gan transplants. The requirement that app licants for public benefits verify their presence may prevent undocumented aliens from even seeking medical care for possible emergency conditions.
207. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 infringe on Individual Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to travel.
208. Because HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 lim it fundamental rights guarantee d by the

United States Constitution, they can on ly be justified by a compelling state interest.
209. There is no compelling state interest for restricting Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights by e nacting HB 1804 or 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9 ), 6-106(B)(10), 6114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
210. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are narrowl y tailored to achieve any com pelling state interest.
211. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are the least restrictive m ethod available to achieve any compelling state interest.
212. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the substantive due process guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
213. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
214. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
215. For the reasons discussed in P laintiffs’ cause of act ion for vi olation of substantive due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution, HB 1804 an d 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 violate the substantive due process guarantees of Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
216. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the substantive due process guarantees of Article 2, Section 7 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
217. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES UNDER

THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

218. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
219. Under the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Co nstitution, state and local governments are prohibited from depriving any person of pr operty without due process of law.

220. Due process of law requires, at a minimum, that before any person, whether an individual, corporation or other business entity may be deprived of a license or permit, the State must provide:

(a) Notice and a reasonable definite statem ent of the charges or matters at issue.

(b) Notice of the time and place of a hearing.

(c) The right to produce witnesses at a hearing.

(d) The right to examine witnesses at a hearing.

(e) The right to a full considerati based on the evidence.

on and determ ination of t he issues

221. Identification documents ar e property interests that are subject to the due process protections of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

222. The Governor, the Attorney General, the State of Oklahom a and its political subdivisions and other public officials are prohibited by the 14 th Amendment from suspending or revoking driver licenses unless the State or its political subdivisions provide the holder of the license due process of law.
223. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, violates Plaintiff Jane Doe 1’s procedural due process rights because it will prevent her from renewing her driver license without the r equirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
224. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 violate Plaintiff John Doe 1’s and Plaintiff Jane Doe 1’s procedural due process rights becaus e they will prevent them from obtaining, renewing, duplicating or having reissued driver licenses to which they are entitled, without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
225. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, violates Individual Plaintiffs’ procedural due process rights because it will deprive them of liberty without the requirement s of due pr ocess, including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
226. Section 8 if HB 1804, which will be co dified as 56 O.S. § 71, violates

Individual Plaintiffs’ proce dural due process rights because it threatens to prevent them from obtainin g or continui ng to obtai n public benefits to which they may be entitle d, without the requirements of due process including but not limited to notice and opportunity to be heard.
227. HB 1804 a nd 47 O. S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-11 4(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6- 122 do not pr ovide Plaintiff John Doe 1 and Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 wit h due proc ess before the St ate may deprive them of property interests.
228. The procedures established under HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6- 122 do not satisfy the due process requirements of the United States Constitution
229. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6- 122 are unconstitutional because they violate pr ocedural due process guarantees of the U.S. Constitution.
230. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS GUARANTEES OF
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
231. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
232. For the reasons discussed in P laintiffs’ cause of act ion for vi olation of procedural due process gua rantees of the U.S. Constitution, the procedures established under HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9 ), 6-106(B)(10), 6114(A), 6-115(A) a nd (D), and 6-1 22 do not satisfy the due process requirements of the Oklahoma Constitution
233. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the procedural due process guarantees of the Oklahoma Constitution.
234. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.

NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE OF THE U.S.
CONSTITUTION 235. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 236. Plaintiffs are persons within the jurisdiction of the State of Oklahoma. 237. HB 1804 creates a classification based on alienage. 238. HB 1804 has already spa wned discrimination by state actors and pri vate
individuals against individuals of foreign national origin. 239. This discrimination reflects, and ra ises a presum ption of, intent to
discriminate against persons of foreign national origin. 240. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be c odified as 21 O.S. § 446, creat es a
classification based on undocumented alienage. 241. Section 3 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented
aliens to associate with whomever they wish, to travel and to contract. 242. Section 4 of HB 1804, which will am end 21 O.S. § 1 550.42, creates a
classification based on undocumented alienage. 243. Section 4 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented

aliens to travel.
244. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be c odified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, creates a classification based on alienage, whether or not an alien is documented.
245. Section 5 infringes on the cons titutionally protected rights of aliens to liberty.
246. Section 7 of HB 1804 infringes on th e constitutionally protected right of Employer Plaintiffs to property.
247. Section 8 of HB 1804, wh ich will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, creates a classification based on undocumented alienage.
248. Section 8 infringes on the constitutionally protected rights of undocumented aliens to life.
249. Section 8 covers persons f ourteen years old and up, some of whom are therefore minor children, who are no t accountable for their status as undocumented aliens.
250. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of Plaintiffs to travel.
251. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 create a classification based on undocumented alienage.

252. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and ( D), and 6- 122 are not necessary to serve a compelling state interest.
253. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are narrowl y tailored to achieve any com pelling state interest.
254. Neither HB 1804 nor 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are the least restrictive m ethod available to achieve any compelling state interest.
255. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not substantially related to any important government interest.
256. The classifications created by HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 do not rationally further any legitimate state interest.
257. Particularly irrational are provisi ons which deny publi c benefits includi ng but not lim ited to scholarships and resi dent tuition to undocumented aliens who pay the same taxes as other residents of the State of Oklahoma.
258. There is no evidence that undocumented aliens im pose any significant

burdens on the economy of Oklahoma
259. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
260. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE EQUAL PROTECTION GUARANTEE OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
261. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
262. The Oklahoma Constitution guarantees equal protection to all within its jurisdiction through its Article 2, Section 7 Due Process Clause.
263. The equal protection guarantee of the Oklahoma Constitution is co-extensive with its federal counterpart.
264. For the reasons discussed in the preceding cause of action, HB 1804 violates

the due process guarantee of the Oklahoma Constitution.
265. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the equal protection guarantee contained in the Oklahoma Constitution.
266. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE CONTRACTS CLAUSE OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
267. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
268. Contracts exist between Plaintiff John Does 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Plaintiff Jane Does 2, 3, 4 and 5 and th eir landlords which will be affected by Section 3 of HB 1804.
269. HB 1804 substantially impairs the obligations of these contracts.
270. A contract exists between Plaintiff Jane Doe 1 and the State of Oklahom a pursuant to which the State of Okla homa agreed to renew her driver license.
271. HB 1804 will substantially impair the obligation of this contract.

272. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 substantially impairs the obligation of this contract.
273. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
274. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 15 OF THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION 275. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding
paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
276. For the reasons discussed in the preceding cause of action, HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 violate Article 2, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
277. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are

unconstitutional because they violate Article 2, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
278. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION CONTAINED
IN THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION
279. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
280. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitu tion provides that “No person . . . shall be com pelled in any cr iminal case to be a witness against himself . . . .”
281. Section 8 of HB 1804, whic h will be codified as 56 O.S. § 71, re quires that applicants for public benefits execute an affidavit under penalty of perjury attesting to their lawful status.
282. Although section 8 provides an exception to the requ irement for verification of lawful presence in the event of a medical emergency, it is often difficult to

determine whether or not a medical condition is an emergency.
283. Section 8 excludes organ transplant procedures from the category of medical emergency.
284. Section 8 impliedly leaves the determination of wh ether a medical condition is an emergency to the agency or person administering the public benefit.
285. Section 8 may will thus in certain circ umstances place undocumented aliens in the catch-22 of either abstaining fro m public benefits to obtain life-saving medical treatment, or committing a crime.
286. Section 8 thus coerces undocumented aliens to commit a crime.
287. Section 8 violates the Fifth Am endment prohibition against selfincrimination, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
288. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates th e right against self-incrimination contained in the U.S. Constitution.
289. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION CONTAINED
IN THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION
290. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
291. Article 2, section 21 of the Okla homa Constitution provi des, “[n]o person shall be compelled to give evidence which will tend to incriminate him, except as in this Constitution specifically provided . . . .”
292. For the reasons discussed in the preceding cause of action, HB 1804 is likely to force people to incriminate themselves.
293. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates th e right against self-incrimination contained in the Oklahoma Constitution.
294. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
FIFTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE SEPARATION OF POWERS DOCTRINE OF THE
OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION

295. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by th is reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
296. The Constitution of Oklahoma divides the State Government of Oklahoma into three branches, the ex ecutive, legislative and judicial. Article III of the Constitution states as follows:
297. The powers of the gover nment of the State of Oklahom a shall be divided into three separate departm ents: The Legislative, Exec utive, and Judicial; and except as prov ided in this Constitution, the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial departm ents of governm ent shall be separate and distinct, and neither shall exercise the powers properly belonging to either of the others. Okla. Const. Art. 4, § 1.
298. The Oklahoma Constitution prohibits each branch of government from exercising the powers that are give n by the Constitution to a separate branch of government.
299. The Constitution of Oklahom a prohibits the Legislative Branch of government from exercising executive powers that pr operly belong to the Executive Branch of government.
300. The Legislative Branch has the po wer to write and pass laws. The Executive Branch has the sole power to carry out the provisions of the law.

301. Section 10 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 74 O.S. § 20j, violates the separation of powers because it requires the Executi ve Branch to negotiate and sign a “Memorandum of Unders tanding” with the United States Department of Justice and Depart ment of Homeland Security. Such action is properly and solely within the discretion of the Executive Branch.
302. Section 10 mandates that the Execu tive Branch take the above action regardless of the resources, othe r duties, professional judgment and other priorities or factors th at the Executive Branch would othe rwise consider in discharging its duties under HB 1804 a nd under all other laws for whic h it has the responsibility to take action.
303. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers of the Oklahoma Constitution.
304. Plaintiffs are entitled to a prelim inary and permanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and Attorne y General from taking actions to enforc e or implement HB 1804.
SIXTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO BAIL UNDER THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION
305. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding

paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
306. Article 2, section 8 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides in relevant part that “All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except that bail may be denied for: 1. capital offenses when the proof of guilt is evident, or the presumption thereof is great; 2. violent offenses; 3. offenses where the maximum sentence may be life imprisonment or life imprisonment without parole; 4. felony offenses where the person charged with the offense has been convicted of two or more felony offenses arising out of different transactions; and 5. controlled dangerous substances offenses where the maximum sentence may be at least ten (10) years imprisonment.”
307. Section 5 of HB 1804, whic h will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, states at subsection (C) that “[f] or purpose of de termining the grant of or issuance of bond, it shall be a rebuttable pr esumption that a person whose citizenship status has been verified pursua nt to subsection B of this section to be a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States is at risk of flight.” Because the language of the bill references “the grant or issuance of bond” not the am ount of bond, the legislature clearly intended t o

deny bail to undocumented aliens.

308. Status as a n undocumented alien is not among the enumerated grounds for which the Oklahoma Constitution permits denial of bail.

309. Section 5 of HB 1804 violates th Constitution.

e right to bail under the Okla homa

310. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates th e right to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution.

311. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.

SEVENTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF 42 U.S.C. § 1981

312. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

313. Pursuant to 42 U.S. C. § 1981, “ All persons within the ju risdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to s ue, be par ties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and pr oceedings for the security of pe rsons and

property as is enjoyed by white c itizens, and shall be s ubject to like punishment, pains, penalties, tax es, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other.”
314. Section 1981 prohibit s discrimination under color of law on account of alienage and race.
315. The provisions of secti on 1981 apply to aliens, including undocumented aliens, as well as to United States citizens.
316. HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 involve intent to discriminate on the basis of alienage.
317. Section 3 of HB 1804, which will be codifi ed as 21 O.S. § 446, will interfere with Individual Plainti ffs’ ability to make and enforce contracts with landlords and common carriers.
318. Section 4 of HB 1804 , which will amend 21 O.S. § 1550.42, will discriminate against I ndividual Plaintiffs with regard to licenses, and de ny them the full and equal benefit of laws.
319. Section 5 of HB 1804, which will be codified as 22 O.S. § 171.2, will subject undocumented aliens to disproportionate punishments and penalties, insofar as it may mandate additional incarcera tion up to 48 hours of a prisoner unable to verify his or her lawful status.

320. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 discriminate against Plaintiffs with regard to licenses, and de prive them of the full and equal benefit of laws.
321. The discrimination will interfere with Pl aintiffs’ right to make and enforce contracts, to the full and equal benef it of al l laws and proceedi ngs for the security of persons and property; and will subject them to discriminatory punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions.
322. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unlawful because they violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
323. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
EIGHTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT
324. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
325. The Fair Housing Act (FHA ), 42 U.S. C. Sections 36 01 et seq., prohibits

housing practices that disc riminate on the basis or race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or handicap.

326. HB 1804 states under Section 3, Subsec tion B that is “shall be unl awful for any person to conceal, harbor…from detection any alien in any place”.

327. HB 1804 discriminates impermissibly based upon national origin.

328. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 36 04(a), it is illegal to make housing unavailable “because of race…or national origin”.

329. Plaintiffs John Doe 3, 4, 5, 6 a nd 7 a nd Jane Doe 2, 3, 4 a nd 5 are undocumented aliens.

330. The above-named Plaintiffs received eviction notices because of HB 1804.

331. On information and belief, Plaintiffs John Doe 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and Ja ne Doe 2, 3, 4 and 5 were suspected by t heir landlords of being undocumented aliens on account of thei r foreign national origin and/or their Latino ethnicity.

332. HB 1804 has already had, and will c ontinue to have, a disparate impact upon foreign nationals and Latinos.

333. HB 1804 has already resulted in,

and will continue to result in,

discrimination on the basis of undocumented alienage.

334. Therefore, HB 1804 violates the Fair Housing Act.
335. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declarator y judgment that HB 1804 is unlawful because it violates the Fair Housing Act.
336. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to e nforce or implement HB 1804.
NINETEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF LEGITIMATE POLICE POWERS
337. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
338. The Preamble to the Constitution of the State of Oklahoma sets forth that the people of Oklahoma ordain and establish the State’s Constitution “[i]nvoking the guidance of Almighty God, in order to secure and perpetuate the blessing of liberty; to secure just and rightful gover nment; to promote our mutual welfare and happiness . . . .” Okla. Const. Preamble.
339. HB 1804 regulates property within the jurisdiction of Oklahoma.
340. While Section 2 of HB 1804 cites “e conomic hardship and lawl essness in this state[,]” it is HB 1804 which ha s already become a source of economic hardship to the State of Oklahoma. Each and every one of the Plaintiffs has

experienced economic hardship as a direct result of HB 1804. On information and belief, undoc umented aliens are not responsible for a disproportionate share of crime in the State of Oklahoma.
341. The State of Oklahoma can reasona bly anticipate prohibitive costs associated with implementing HB 1804.
342. HB 1804 a nd 47 O. S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-11 4(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are not necessary to secure the general safety, the public welfare, and the peace and good order of the community.
343. HB 1804 a nd 47 O. S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-11 4(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious and confiscatory.
344. HB 1804 a nd 47 O. S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-11 4(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 interfe re with Plaintiffs’ c onstitutionally protected rights, including but not necessarily lim ited to the rights to associate with whomever Plaintiffs choose, to travel, to contract, to pursue a livelihood, to work for a living, to liberty, to life, and to property.
345. HB 1804 a nd 47 O. S. §§ 6- 103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-11 4(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 bear no relationship to any legitimate purpose or to the welfare of the general public.
346. HB 1804 and 47 O.S . §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A)

and (D), a nd 6-122 attem pt to invoke the State’s police power when the subject to which they are directed has no s ubstantial relation to the public health, morals, or welfare.
347. Section 3 of HB 1804 potentially crim inalizes such protected activities as social and political interactions, the ex ercise of religion and travel. In so doing, it t hreatens to punish pe rsons for a matter for which by law no person ought to be punished.
348. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unlawful because they violate the leg itimate police powers of the State of Oklahoma.
349. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and Attorney General from taking actions to e nforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
TWENTIETH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2, SECTION 2 OF THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION
350. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

351. Article 2, section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution provides that “[a]ll persons have the inherent right to life, liber ty, the pursuit of ha ppiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.”
352. Article 2, Section 2 of the Oklahom a Constitution refers to “persons” generally, not to “citizens” or “lawful residents.” Its protections therefore extend to undocumented aliens.
353. HB 1804 deprives or threatens to deprive all Plaintiffs of the inherent right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.
354. 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6122 deprives or threatens to depriv e John Doe 1 and Jane Doe 1 of the inherent rights to liberty, the purs uit of happiness, and t he enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.
355. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declaratory judgment that HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate Ar ticle 2, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
356. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A),

6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
TWENTY-FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 5, SECTION 48 OF THE OKLAHOMA
CONSTITUTION
357. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by this reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.
358. Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahom a Constitution provides that, “[t]he Legislature shall have no power to appr opriate any of t he public money for the establishment and maintenance of a Bureau of Immigration in this State.”
359. Section 2 of HB 1804 states that HB 1804’s purpose is “to discourage illegal immigration . . . .”
360. To this end, Section 12 of HB 1804 establishes “a Fraudulent D ocuments Identification (FDI) Unit for the primary purpose of investigating and apprehending persons or entities that pa rticipate in the sale or dis tribution of fraudulent documents used for id entification purposes. The unit shall additionally specialize in fraudulent identification documents created and prepared for persons who are unla wfully residing within the State of Oklahoma.”
361. Section 12 requires that the Department of Public Safety “employ sufficient

employees to investigate and implement an FDI Unit.
362. The FDI Unit is in effect a Bureau of Immigration.
363. Section 12 requires the appropriation of public money for the FDI Unit, and therefore violates Article 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
364. Plaintiffs are entitled to a declar atory judgment that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates Artic le 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
365. Plaintiffs are entitled to a preliminar y and permanent injunction to enjoi n the Governor and A ttorney General from taking actions to enforce or implement HB 1804.
DEMAND FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully demand judgment awarding the following:
A. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that HB 1804 is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights under the United States and Oklahoma constitutions; the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution; Article 2, Section 15 of the Oklahoma Constitution; rights against self-incrimination under the

United States and Oklahoma constitutions ; separation of powers doctrine of the Oklahoma Constitution; ri ght to bail under the Oklahoma Constitution; legitimate police powers under the Oklahoma Constitution; Article 2, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution; and Ar ticle 5, Section 48 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
B. A declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unconstitutional because they violate Plaintiffs’ due process and equal protection rights under the United States and Okl ahoma constitutions; the Contracts Clause of the United States Constitution; Article 2, Section 15 of the Okla homa Constitution; legitimate police powers pursuant to the Oklahoma Constitution; and Article 2, Section 2 of the Oklahoma Constitution.
C. A declaratory j udgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that HB 1804 is unlawful pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and §§3601 et. seq..
D. A declaratory j udgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 declaring that 47 O.S. §§ 6-1 03(A)(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6115(A) and (D), and 6-122 are unlawful pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
E. A preliminary and pe rmanent injunction to enjoin the Governor and

Attorney General from taki ng actions to enforce or implement HB 1804 and 47 O.S. §§ 6-103(A )(9), 6-106(B)(10), 6-114(A), 6-115(A) and (D), and 6-122.
F. An award of attorney fees plus costs and interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
G. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 31st day of October, 2007.

Counsel

for Plaintiffs,

___/s/ Rohit Cynthia
403
(918) Fax: Email:
Williams
Lakeside 12915
(305) Fax: Email:

Rohit Sharma_________ C. Sharma, Esq. (OBA# 19702)
G. Mirkes, Esq. (OBA# 21755) Sharma Law Firm
S. Cheyenne Ave., Ste. 1200 Tulsa, OK 74103
398-0327 (918) 516-0232
rohit@sharmalawfirm.com
J. Sanchez-Calderon, Esq. Sanchez Law LLC
Corporate Park SW 132 St., Ste. 5 Miami, FL 33186 232-8889 (305) 232-8819 imiglaw@aol.com

(Florida

Bar No. 749060)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 31th day of October, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrant:
Kevin Lynn McClure M Daniel Weitman Sandra D Rinehart

/s/

Rohit Sharma___________

Rohit Sharma, Esq.

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 33 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/31/2007 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO

)

CLERGY, INC; CONLAMIC-OKLAHOMA; )

CHURCH EFICAZ; CHURCH PIEDRA

)

ANGULAR; T-MAC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; )

CHILINO’S RESTAURANT; JOHN DOE ONE; )

JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JOHN )

DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; JOHN DOE

)

SIX; JOHN DOE SEVEN; JANE DOE ONE;

)

JANE DOE TWO; JANE DOE THREE;

)

JANE DOE FOUR; JANE DOE FIVE, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State

)

of Oklahoma, and DREW EDMONDSON,

)

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 07-CV-613-JHP

ORDER AND OPINION
Before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction [Docket No. 5];
Defendants’ Response to the Motion [Docket No. 26]; and Plaintiffs’ Reply to the Response [Docket
No. 27]. A hearing was held on October 31, 2007 where the Court heard argument on the Motion.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Motion is DENIED.
A party seeking a preliminary injunction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65 bears the burden of
establishing:
(1) the movant will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction issues; (2) the threatened injury ... outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing party; (3) the injunction, if issued, would not be adverse to the public interest; and (4) there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 33 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 10/31/2007 Page 2 of 2
Heidman v. South Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). It is the movant's burden to establish that each of these factors tips in his or her favor. Id. at 1188-1189 (internal citations omitted)(emphasis added). Additionally, the Court is mindful that a preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy, and [one that] should not be issued unless the movant’s right to relief is ‘clear and unequivocal.’”Id. at 1188 (quoting Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F.3d 950, 955 (10th Cir. 2001)).
In this case, Plaintiffs had the burden of establishing all four prongs of the preliminary injunction test. Plaintiffs, however, put on no evidence at the hearing on the motion for a preliminary injunction.1 Plaintiffs’ instead simply argued the fourth prong of the four-pronged preliminary injunction test: likelihood of success on the merits. In light of Plaintiffs’ failure to introduce evidence in support of their motion, and in light of Plaintiffs’ limited argument in support of their motion, the Court cannot conclude that the Plaintiffs’ right to a preliminary injunction has been clearly and unequivocally established.
Therefore, Plaintiffs have failed to meet their burden of proof, and their Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
1 Evidence that goes beyond the unverified allegations of the pleadings and motion papers must be presented to support or oppose a motion for a preliminary injunction. 11A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2949 at 214; see also Bossert v. Springfield Group, Inc., F. Supp. 56, 58 (D.C. Ohio 1984).

 
 CASE NO. CIV-07-613-GKF-FHM
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO CLERGY and CHRISTIAN LEADERS, INC., CONLAMIC - OKLAHOMA, CHURCH EFICAZ, CHURCH PIEDRA ANGULAR, MEXICO LINDO RESTAURANTS, JOHN DOE ONE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
BRAD HENRY, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and W. A. DREW EDMONDSON, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA,
Defendants.
GOVERNOR BRAD HENRY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL W. A. DREW EDMONDSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS
M. DANIEL WEITMAN, OBA #17412 KEVIN L. MCCLURE, OBA #14127 SANDRA D. RINEHART, OBA #11873
Assistant Attorneys General Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office
Litigation Section 313 N. E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Tele: (405) 521-4274 Fax: (405)521-4518 Kevin_McClure@oag.state.ok.us Attorneys for Defendants
(2) Exhibits attached in PDF format October 29, 2007

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv - viii

GOVERNOR BRAD HENRY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL W.A. DREW EDMONDSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

PSEUDONYM-PLAINTIFFS ARE IMPROPER PARTIES PURSUANT TO FRCP 17(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Claim One

The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Claim Two

Violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause - U.S. Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Claim Three

Violation of Due Process - Vagueness and Overbreath - U.S. Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Claim Four

Violation of the Oklahoma Constitution Vagueness and Overbreath.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Claim Five

Violation of Substantive Due Process U.S. Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Claim Six

Violation of Substantive Due Process Oklahoma Due Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Claim Seven

Violation of Procedural Due Process U.S. Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

-ii-

Claim Eight

Procedural Due Process Oklahoma Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Claim Nine

Violation of the Equal Protection Clause - U.S. Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Claim Ten

Violation of the Fifth Amendment U.S. Constitution. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Claim Eleven

Self-Incrimination Oklahoma Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Claim Twelve

Separation of Powers Oklahoma Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Claim Thirteen Right to Bail Oklahoma Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Claim Fourteen Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Claim Fifteen

Violation of the Fair Housing Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Claim Sixteen Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

-iii-

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
FEDERAL CASES
Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593 (9th Cir. 1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17
American Friends Service Committee Corp. v. Thornburgh, 961 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 91 S. Ct. 1586, 29 L. Ed. 2d 90 (1971). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 13, 14
Board of County Comm'rs v. Geringer, 297 F.3d 1108 (10th Cir.2002).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Ciccone v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, 861 F.2d 14 (2nd 1988).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Daniels v. Dillards, Inc., 373 F.3d 885 (8th Cir.2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Ass'n, 522 F. Supp. 559 (E.D. Va. 1981). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Espinoza v. Farah Manufacutring Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341 (9th Cir.1989).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d 1083 (5th Cir.1994).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Hispanic Taco Vendors of Washington v. City of Pasco, 790 F. Supp. 1023 (E.D.Wash.1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
-iv-

INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14 (1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11
Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206 (10th Cir. 1988). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 14, 15, 18, 19
M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798 (10th Cir. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157 (10th Cir. 2003). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 14, 15, 18, 19
Morris v. Office Max, Inc., 89 F.3d 411 (7th Cir.1996).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935 (10th Cir.2003).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841, 104 S. Ct. 3348, 82 L. Ed. 2d 632 (1984). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm'n, 220 F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2000). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 8
U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873 (1975).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11
U. S. v. Moreno, 561 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1977). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
U.S. v. Ontoniel Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11
Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567 (10th Cir. 1995). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
-v-

Vietnamese Fishermen's Ass'n v. Knights of Ku Klux Klan, S.D.Tex.1981, 518 F. Supp. 993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 Washington v. City of Pasco, 994 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1993).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Wells v. Ward, 470 F.2d 1185 (10th Cir. 1972). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir.2006).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATUTES 8 U.S.C. § 1324. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11 8 U.S.C. § 1601(6).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 18 42 U.S.C. § 1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 42 U.S.C. § 1982. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 42 U.S.C. § 1983, §1981. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2, 5 42 U.S.C. § 3604. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 FRCP 10(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 FRCP 12(b)(6) . . . . . . . . . . . 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 FRCP 17(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 21 O.S. § 446. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11 22 O.S. § 171.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 12
-vi-

25 O.S. § 1313 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 56 O.S. § 71 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 16 47 O.S. § 6-103(B).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 14
-vii-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO

)

CLERGY and CHRISTIAN LEADERS, INC., )

CONLAMIC - OKLAHOMA,

)

CHURCH EFICAZ,

)

CHURCH PIEDRA ANGULAR,

)

MEXICO LINDO RESTAURANTS,

)

JOHN DOE ONE, et al.,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

vs.

)

)

BRAD HENRY, GOVERNOR OF

)

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA and

)

DREW EDMONDSON, ATTORNEY

)

GENERAL OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA )

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. CIV-07-613 GKF FHM

GOVERNOR BRAD HENRY AND ATTORNEY GENERAL W.A. DREW EDMONDSON’S MOTION TO DISMISS

COMES NOW, Governor Brad Henry (“Governor”) and Attorney General W.A. Drew

Edmondson (“AG” or “Attorney General”), to file this Motion to Dismiss pursuant to [1]

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction, [2] pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure state grounds upon which this Court

can grant relief, and [3] pursuant to FRCP 17(a). In support of this motion, Defendants

would show this court the following:

GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On May 1, 2007, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the Oklahoma Taxpayer and

Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (“Act”). The Act contains fourteen sections relating to illegal

aliens. Most provisions of the act become effective November 1, 2007. Section 7 of the Act, which applies to verifying the federal employment authorization status of employees, does not become effective until July 1, 2008. (Exhibit No. 1 - House Bill No. 1804).
Plaintiffs in this case can be divided into four categories. The organizational plaintiffs are the National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders (CONLAMIC-USA) and CONLAMIC Oklahoma, the local organization. A second category of plaintiffs are the Church Plaintiffs, Church Eficaz and Church Piedra Angular. The third category of plaintiff identifies itself as Mexico Lindo Restaurant, and will be referred to as the EmployerPlaintiff. The final category of plaintiffs are pseudonym plaintiffs referred to as “John and Jane Does”. All of the Plaintiffs have alleged the Act violates their Oklahoma and United States Constitutional rights. They have filed this lawsuit pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1981, and § 1982 asking this Court to declare the Act unconstitutional. They have also asked this Court to grant them a Preliminary Injunction pending this Court’s ruling on the merits of their claims.
PSEUDONYM- PLAINTIFFS ARE IMPROPER PARTIES PURSUANT TO FRCP 17(a)
The Organizational Plaintiffs, Church-Plaintiffs, and Employer-Plaintiff are joined in this lawsuit by several pseudonym plaintiffs. Allowing Plaintiffs to use pseudonyms is “an unusual procedure.” M.M. v. Zavaras, 139 F.3d 798, 800 (10th Cir. 1998). There is no specific statute or rule supporting the practice. Id. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 17(a) specifically states that “[e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real
-2-

party in interest.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 17(a). Issues of res judicata and collateral estoppel could be severally hampered if a party were allowed to proceed under a pseudonym in one lawsuit, but then turn-around and challenge the same statute again in another case. Femedeer v. Haun, 227 F.3d 1244 (10th Cir. 2000). The Tenth Circuit has elaborated on the issue:
Lawsuits are public events. A plaintiff should be permitted to proceed anonymously only in those exceptional cases involving matters of a highly sensitive and personal nature, real danger of physical harm, or where the injury litigated against would be incurred as a result of the disclosure of the plaintiff's identity. The risk that a plaintiff may suffer some embarrassment is not enough. Id. at 1246. “Ordinarily, those using the courts must be prepared to accept the public scrutiny that is an inherent part of public trials.” Id. at 1246. A civil action “is not a masquerade party nor is it a game of judicial hide-n-seek where the plaintiff may offer the defendant the added challenge of uncovering his real name.” Zocaras v. Castro, 465 F.3d 479 (11th Cir.2006). Furthermore, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10 expressly requires that every complaint contain a caption setting forth a title containing “the names of all the parties.” FRCP 10(a). Plaintiffs, John and Jane Does, claim they do not want to be identified as the “real parties in interest” in this case, because they fear criminal prosecution and the public scrutiny involved in identifying themselves. However, such reasoning does not meet the Tenth Circuit’s standard for allow such anonymity. Plaintiffs are asking this Court to allow them to remain anonymous as illegal aliens because they do not want to be persecuted or arrested for being illegally in this country. In other words, they want the freedoms, benefits, and rights our courts grant citizens but without the responsibility inherent with those rights. This
-3-

Court should dismiss all John and Jane Does from this lawsuit pursuant to Rule 17(a) as not real parties in interest.
THE COMPLAINT SHOULD BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND FOR FAILURE TO STATE CLAIMS UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED Federal Court subject matter jurisdiction is determined by Article III of the United States Constitution. In order to have Article III jurisdiction, a plaintiff must have standing to sue. The question of standing presents a threshold jurisdictional issue, therefore a Court may raise the issue sua sponte. See Rector v. City and County of Denver, 348 F.3d 935, 942 (10th Cir.2003). "Standing" has both constitutional and prudential components. See Id. For a party to have constitutional standing, there must be: (1) an injury to the party's legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) a causal relationship between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. See id. A party has prudential standing if: (1) the party asserts its own rights, not those of third parties; (2) the party's claim is not a general grievance shared equally and generally by all or a large class of citizens; and (3) the party's injury is within the zone of interests the statute or common law claim intends to protect. See Board of County Comm'rs v. Geringer, 297 F.3d 1108, 1112 (10th Cir.2002).
-4-

Furthermore, a plaintiff must also state a valid claim under a remedial statute and state what constitutional or federal law has been violated. Otherwise the case should be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Plaintiffs have alleged sixteen claims against the Defendants and that this Court should grant them declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, § 1981, and § 1982. Each Claim will be addressed below. Claim One - The Supremacy Clause and Federal Preemption
The Plaintiffs collectively allege that the Act violates the United States Constitution’s Supremacy Clause and is further preempted by federal immigration law. No individual Plaintiff is identified under this claim and Plaintiffs have not alleged any injuries they would have as a result of the Act’s application other then how it could affect “employers”, in general. Since the Employer-Plaintiff (“Lindo Restaurant”) is the only identified employer in the Complaint, it is assumed that only that Plaintiff is challenging the Act under Claim One. However, the Employer-Plaintiff’s only alleged injuries are that “since the passage of the Act it has lost business” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 32). Such speculative injury cannot be attributed to the Act, since the Act has not even taken effect yet. That admission by the Employer-Plaintiff proves that there is no causal connection between the actual Act and the Employer-Plaintiff’s alleged injury.
The Employer-Plaintiff has even admitted that it does fully comply with federal law when hiring employees (Exhibit No. 2, para. 33), and that on November 1, 2007, it will
-5-

comply with State law. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 35). Its only other possible injury is its statement under paragraph 37, that the Act will be “burdensome and time consuming” in its hiring of new employees. (Exhibit No. 2) But such compliance is no more burdensome then the paying of taxes or social security on its non-illegal alien employees, which it admits it already does. See Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)(Neither the mere existence of a prospective statute nor a generalized threat of prosecution satisfies the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III standing). Clearly neither, the Employer-Plaintiff (nor any other Plaintiff) has standing under Claim One to sue the Governor or the Attorney General, and this Court should dismiss Claim One pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter standing jurisdiction. Claim Two - Violation of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause - U.S. Constitution
This claim is asserted by the Organizations for its member Churches and by the Church-Plaintiffs. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 155-161). They claim that the Act violates their First Amendment Free Exercise rights because the Act “places substantial burdens on their beliefs and practices.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 158). However, the “transportation of illegal aliens” does not come within the protected rights enumerated in First Amendment “free exercise”clause of the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, neither the Church-Plaintiffs nor the Organization-Plaintiffs are “persons” subject to criminal prosecution. No individual Church member or officer is named as a Plaintiff in this case. Finally, because the elements of the federal and state crimes are identical, Plaintiffs’ claim that Church members intend to
-6-

continue to transport illegal aliens is essentially an admission that they plan to commit a federal felony in the future. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). Congress has firmly established that there is a substantial interest in the effective enforcement of immigration law. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975); INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19 (1982). And even though immigration is a federal matter, local and state government agencies may not turn a blind eye to any illegal activity, including violations of immigration law. U.S. v. Ontoniel Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999); See also American Friends Service Committee Corp. v. Thornburgh, 961 F.2d 1405(9th Cir. 1991)(Quakers had no free exercise clause claim to help illegal aliens in violation of federal law). Therefore, not only should this Court dismiss Claim Two on lack of standing grounds pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter standing jurisdiction, but also pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which this court could grant relief since there is no “free exercise” right to transport illegal aliens. Claim Three - Violation of Due Process -Vagueness and Overbreath - U.S. Constitution
No particular Plaintiff is identified under this Claim. The Complaint alleges that Section 3 of the Act is unconstitutionally vague and overly broad in violation of the due process clause because:
(1) “it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes transporting, moving, attempting to transport an undocumented alien in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 166).
-7-

(2) “it fails to specify the precise conduct that constitutes concealing, harboring or sheltering an undocumented alien from detection.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 167). (3) “if [SIC] fails to specify what documentation or proof on the part of the alien would suffice to prevent a person transporting, moving, attempting to transport, concealing, harboring, or sheltering the alien form doing these activities with knowledge or reckless disregard for the alien’s unlawful presence.” Even assuming this allegation is referring to the Church-Plaintiffs, this Court should dismiss this claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because those claims are too speculative and are not grounded on the law. U. S. v. Moreno, 561 F.2d 1321 (9th Cir. 1977)(federal mirrored statute 8 U.S.C. § 1324 not unconstitutionally vague). Again, a Church is not a “person” subject to criminal prosecution, and no Church member has been made a party to this lawsuit. Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Comm’n, 220 F.3d 1134, 1139 (9th Cir. 2000)(Neither the mere existence of a prospective statute nor a generalized threat of prosecution satisfies the “case or controversy” requirement of Article III standing). The Complaint also alleges that Section 5 of the Act (22 O.S. § 171.2) is unconstitutionally vague because: (1) “it fails to specify what documents or proof are needed in order to determine the citizenship status or lawful immigration status of a prisoner or verify that the prisoner has been lawfully admitted to the United States”. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 171).
-8-

(2) it fails to specify whether, in the event that verification of lawful status cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner, the prisoner must remain incarcerated for the specified 48 hours within which verification must be made.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 172). No Plaintiff herein has standing to bring this claim. No Plaintiff has alleged he or she is a “prisoner” or is in jail. Therefore, this Court should dismiss this claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of standing and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Finally, the Complaint alleges that the Act is unconstitutionally vague because “it fails to specify what constitutes an independent, third-party system with an equal or higher degree of reliability as the programs, systems, or processes described in [Section 6, Subsection 1] which would insulate an employer from strict liability under Section 7.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 173). Even assuming this allegation is referring to the Employer-Plaintiff, that Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, because it has already admitted that it will fully comply with federal and state law. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 35-37). Therefore, even the Employor-Plaintiff has not suffered any injury and lacks standing to bring this lawsuit. Claim Four - Violation of the Oklahoma Constitution - Vagueness and Overbreath This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157,
-9-

1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988). “While it is true that state law with respect to arrest is looked to for guidance as to the validity of the arrest since the officers are subject to those local standards, it does not follow that state law governs.” Wells v. Ward, 470 F.2d 1185, 1187 (10th Cir. 1972).
No plaintiff has standing to sue for the alleged violations claimed under Claim Four, because no Plaintiff has been identified as a prisoner and the Employer-Plaintiff has admitted that it plans to fully comply with state and federal law in its employment practices. Therefore, this Court should dismiss this Claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter Article III standing jurisdiction, and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief. Claim Five - Violation of Substantive Due Process - U.S. Constitution
This Claim does not allege which Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights will be violated by the Act. The Complaint alleges that Section 3 of the Act (21 O.S. § 446) infringes on Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to associate with illegal aliens in their vehicles and on their property, and that it infringes on their right to travel because it prohibits them from transporting illegal aliens. This Claim also alleges that the Act would infringe on their right to contract with illegal aliens in the leasing of property or to purchase tickets for transportation. Plaintiffs have not stated a claim upon which this Court can grant them relief.
-10-

Substantive due process claims require “a magnitude of potential or actual harm that is truly conscience shocking.” Uhlrig v. Harder, 64 F.3d 567, 574 (10th Cir. 1995). Oklahoma’s statute is merely a mirror provision of the federal law. 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(ii). If the federal law is not unconstitutional, then neither can the state statute be a violation of substantive due process, because states cannot ignore federal immigration laws nor turn a blind eye to their enforcement. U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 878 (1975); INS v. Miranda, 459 U.S. 14, 19 (1982); U.S. v. Ontoniel Vasquez-Alvarez, 176 F.3d 1294 (10th Cir. 1999). Therefore, this Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief, pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Likewise, this Court should also dismiss this Claim because no Plaintiff has alleged he or she will be transporting any illegal aliens and the Church-Plaintiff is not a “person” subject to criminal prosecution under the law.
This Claim also alleges that Section 4 of the Act (21 O.S. § 1550.42) infringes on Plaintiffs’ fundamental rights to obtain drivers licenses, and that it “is not reasonably related to any legitimate state objective.” However, the driving of an automobile is not a right, it is a privilege subject to a state’s police powers. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)(possession of a driver's license is an entitlement which may be revoked by the State). Plaintiffs who are denied a drivers license or denied a renewal because of the Act, are entitled to due process under Oklahoma law pursuant to 47 O.S. § 6103(B) eff. November 1, 2007 (Any applicant who is denied a license under the provisions
-11-

of subsection A of this section shall have the right to an appeal as provided in Section 6-211 of this title). Therefore, Plaintiffs are mistaken as to the effect of the Act on their due process rights because they are entitled to an appeal of the denial of a drivers license, and this Court should dismiss this Claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter Article III standing jurisdiction and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief.
Plaintiffs also allege under this Claim that Section 5 of the Act (22 O.S. § 171.2) infringes on Plaintiffs’ fundamental right to liberty because it “mandates incarceration of a person for up to 48 hours simply because he or she is unable to verify lawful status.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 190). But no Plaintiff has alleged to be a prisoner, and therefore, this Court should dismiss this Claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter Article III standing jurisdiction and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief.
Plaintiffs also Claim that Section 7 of the Act (25 O.S. § 1313) “infringes on Plaintiffs fundamental rights to travel, to property, to contract, to pursue a livelihood and to work for a living.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 191). Yet, no Plaintiff has alleged to have been discharged from employment of due to this Act’s actual application, and the Employer-Plaintiff has admitted that he does and will fully comply with both federal and state law in its employment of individuals. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 33-37).
-12-

Under this Claim Plaintiffs also allege that Section 8 of the Act (56 O.S. § 71) “infringes on Plaintiffs fundamental right to life because it impedes the access of undocumented aliens to health care.” (Exhibit No. 2, para. 192). Plaintiffs admit the Act will not restrict illegal aliens right to public benefits for “emergency medical conditions”, but that it would restrict them from receiving organ donations. Congress has stated that the national policy of the United States is that aliens within the United States shall not depend on public resources to meet their needs, and “[i]t is a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits.” 8 U.S.C. § 1601(6). The Oklahoma Statute merely reflects that national policy and no Plaintiff has claimed the need for an organ donation. This Court should dismiss this Claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter Article III standing jurisdiction and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief, because no Plaintiff has alleged he or she needs an “organ donation”.
The remaining claims under Claim Five all deal with the denial of a drivers license under the Act, and Plaintiffs claim it violates their fundamental rights to travel. But once again, there is no constitutional right to a drivers license, such a privilege not a right, and a state may enact reasonable restrictions on who may and may not obtain a drivers license. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971). This Claim should also be dismissed pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this court can grant relief, and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.
-13-

Claim Six - Violation of Substantive - Oklahoma Constitution This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which
this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988). Claim Seven - Violation of Procedural Due Process - U.S. Constitution
Under this Claim, Plaintiffs are alleging that the denial of a drivers license is a violation of their Procedural Due Process rights of the United States Constitution. Again, the driving of an automobile is not a right, it is a privilege subject to a state’s police powers. Bell v. Burson, 402 U.S. 535, 539, 91 S.Ct. 1586, 1589, 29 L.Ed.2d 90 (1971)(possession of a driver's license is an entitlement which may be revoked by the State). For those individuals who are denied a drivers license or denied a renewal because of the Act, they are entitled to due process under Oklahoma law pursuant to 47 O.S. § 6-103(B) eff. November 1, 2007 (Any applicant who is denied a license under the provisions of subsection A of this section shall have the right to an appeal as provided in Section 6-211 of this title). Therefore, Plaintiffs are mistaken as to the effect of the Act on their due process rights because they are entitled to an appeal of the denial of a drivers license, and this Court should dismiss this
-14-

Claim pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter Article III standing jurisdiction and pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief. Claim Eight - Procedural Due Process - Oklahoma Constitution
This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988). Claim Nine - Violation of the Equal Protection Clause - U.S. Constitution
Plaintiffs claim that the Act creates a classification based on alienage, and that such classification is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. (Exhibit No. 2, para. 221-246). However, no plaintiff has standing to sue for this Claim and Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which this court can grant them relief. The Act does not create a suspect classification that would entitle them to heighten scrutiny under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 (1982). Therefore, any classification would only need to meet a states legitimate governmental goal of protecting the general welfare and public in order to pass Constitutional muster. Here the only classifications that are in mentioned in the Act are those
-15-

individuals who are violating federal law and are illegal aliens. There is no question that a state can regulate its highways under its police powers as long as those regulations are reasonable. The conditioning of the privilege to drive on the legal status of an alien is not a violation of the equal protection clause. Therefore, this Court should dismiss this Claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Claim Ten - Violation of the Fifth Amendment - U.S. Constitution
Plaintiffs claim that Section 8 of the Act (56 O.S. § 71) violates the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution because it would cause Plaintiffs to self-incriminate themselves in their application for public benefits. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals considered a similar claim in Alcaraz v. Block, 746 F.2d 593, 603 (9th Cir. 1984). In that case, a section of California’s Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 requires an applicant to put his social security number on the application to obtain admission for the school food program for his children. The alien argued that the failure to put the social security number on the application would alert the Department of Education to investigate why there was a no number and result in them turning information over to the INS. The argument was that this could ultimately result in deportation or criminal proceedings. The circuit court made short shrift of the alien’s argument, finding that the crucial step in the analysis is whether the testimony was “compelled” within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. Id. The court noted that compulsion for constitutional purposes means legal compulsion to incriminate oneself. The court found that the alien was under no legal
-16-

compulsion to either divulge his social security number or apply for school meal eligibility. Id. at 604.
The circuit court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Selective Service System v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group, 468 U.S. 841, 104 S.Ct. 3348, 82 L.Ed.2d 632 (1984). In that case, the question was whether a section of the Department of Defense authorization Act of 1983 compelled self-incrimination. Under the section, federal educational entitlements were denied to those disobeying the draft registration law. The section was attacked as violating the fifth amendment’s protection against self-incrimination because it required all male college students who had failed to register “to acknowledge that they have failed to register timely when confronted with certifying to their schools that they have complied with the registration law.” Id.
The Court, relying on the principle of legal compulsion, rejected the claim because “a person who has not registered clearly is under no compulsion to seek federal financial aid; if he has not registered, he is simply ineligible for aid.” Id. The same is true here. No undocumented alien is under any compulsion to seek federal aid. Even though the statute contains certain exceptions for which aid my be applied regardless of status of lawful presence, persons are nonetheless not legally required to seek aid. Therefore, there is no legal compulsion and no Fifth Amendment violation in requiring verification of lawful presence for state benefits. See also Ciccone v. Secretary of the Dept. of Health and Human Services, 861 F.2d 14, 17 (2nd 1988) (applying for social security benefits is a voluntary
-17-

action and is in no way compelled by the government). Those cases illustrate the overall policy considerations that Congress has intended to apply in its dealings with illegal aliens. 8 U.S.C. § 1601(6).
Despite Plaintiffs’ allegations under this Claim, it is clear that there is violation of the Fifth Amendment and no right to public benefits possessed by illegal aliens. Therefore, this Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant Plaintiffs’ relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(5). Claim Eleven - Self-Incrimination - Oklahoma Constitution
This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988). Claim Twelve - Separation of Powers - Oklahoma Constitution
This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations
-18-

of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988).
Claim Thirteen - Right to Bail - Oklahoma Constitution This Court should dismiss this claim for failure to state a claim upon which this Court
can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6) because “violation of state law cannot give rise
to a claim under Section 1983.” Marshall v. Columbia Lea Regional Hosp., 345 F.3d 1157, 1164 (10th Cir. 2003). “Section 1983 does not . . . provide a basis for redressing violations of state law, but only for those violations of federal law done under color of state law.” Jones v. City and County of Denver, 854 F.2d 1206, 1209 (10th Cir. 1988).
Claim Fourteen - Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 Title 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides: (a) All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, penalties, taxes, licenses, and exactions of every kind, and to no other. (b) "Make and enforce contracts" defined For purposes of this section, the term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship.
In a § 1981 action, plaintiffs must show intentional discrimination on account of race. Evans v. McKay, 869 F.2d 1341, 1344 (9th Cir.1989). In order to establish a prima facie case under
-19-

§ 1981, plaintiffs must prove: (1) that they are members of a racial minority; (2) that the defendants had an intent to discriminate on the basis of race; and (3) that the discrimination concerned one or more activities enumerated in the statute. Morris v. Office Max, Inc., 89 F.3d 411, 413-14 (7th Cir.1996); Green v. State Bar of Texas, 27 F.3d 1083, 1086 (5th Cir.1994). The element of intentional discrimination in a § 1981 claim is identical to the element of intentional discrimination in a § 1983 claim. Hispanic Taco Vendors of Washington v. City of Pasco, 790 F.Supp. 1023, 1031 (E.D.Wash.1991), affirmed, Hispanic Taco Vendors of Washington v. City of Pasco, 994 F.2d 676, 679 n. 3 (9th Cir.1993).
Not one of the statutes enumerated under the Act discusses or classifies the rights of individuals as based on race. The only classifications are based on illegal alienage. The Act applies equally to white and non-white illegal aliens. Therefore, this federal remedial statute does not apply to any of Plaintiffs’ claims in its Complaint. Therefore, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state a claim upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Claim Fifteen - Violation of the Fair Housing Act
Plaintiffs further allege Section 3 is unconstitutional as the harboring provisions violate the Fair Housing Act. The Fair Housing Act makes it unlawful “to refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.” 42 U.S.C. § 3604. As with other claims,
-20-

Plaintiffs mistakenly assert they fall within the protections of the Fair Housing Act due to their national origin. Complaint at ¶ 296. The Act applies to illegal aliens; not members of any particular national origin or race. Illegal aliens are not among the classes of persons protected by the Fair Housing Act. See Espinoza v. Hillwood Square Mutual Ass’n, 522 F.Supp. 559, 567-568 (E.D. Va. 1981) citing Espinoza v. Farah Manufacutring Co., 414 U.S. 86 (1973)(the term “national origin” refers to a person’s ancestry and not his citizenship). Under these authorities, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate they come within the parameters of the Fair Housing Act, and therefore, this Court should dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6). Claim Sixteen - Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1982
Plaintiffs claim that defendants violated their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1982 to full and equal use, enjoyment and ownership of their property, and their right to equal utilization of public services. 42 U.S.C. § 1982 provides that “[a]ll citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.” The prima facie elements of a 42 U.S.C. § 1982 claim parallel Section 1981 and require that the plaintiffs establish (1) membership in a protected class; (2) discriminatory intent on the part of the defendant; and (3) interference with the rights or benefits connected with the ownership of property. Daniels v. Dillards, Inc., 373 F.3d 885, 887 (8th Cir.2004).
-21-

This federal remedial statute does not apply to Plaintiffs in this case, because they are not “citizens” within the meaning of the statute. Vietnamese Fishermen's Ass'n v. Knights of Ku Klux Klan, S.D.Tex.1981, 518 F.Supp. 993(Plaintiffs, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against interference by defendants with rights of Vietnamese fishermen in Galveston Bay prior to and during shrimping season, failed to state a cause of action under this section which was available only to citizens of the United States). Furthermore, nothing under the Act creates a classification based on race. Therefore, again, this Court should dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for failure to state claims upon which this Court can grant relief pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6).
CONCLUSION Judge Payne in previously dismissing Plaintiffs’ lawsuit informed Plaintiffs that they needed to sharpen their claims before refiling their Complaint again. It is clear that they have failed to do so. Neither the Organizational-Plaintiffs, the Church-Plaintiffs, nor the Employer-Plaintiff has standing to file this lawsuit. The John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs do not have standing and those that seem to allege valid injuries are speculative at best. Plaintiffs’ Claims are without merit and should be dismissed for the additional ground of failure to state claims upon which the Court can grant relief. THEREFORE, Defendants respectfully requests this Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6).
-22-

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Kevin L. McClure M. DANIEL WEITMAN, OBA #17412 KEVIN L. McCLURE, OBA #12767 SANDRA D. RINEHART, OBA # 11873 Assistant Attorney General Oklahoma Attorney General’s Office Litigation Division 313 N. E. 21st Street Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105 Tele: (405) 521-4274 Fax: (405) 521-4518 Dan_Weitman@oag.state.ok.us Kevin_McClure@oag.state.ok.us Attorneys for Defendants

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on October 29, 2007, I electronically transmitted the attached document to the Clerk of Court using the ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following ECF registrant:

Rohit C. Sharma Sharma Law Firm, PLLC 403 S. Cheyenne Ave., Ste. 1200 Tulsa, OK 74103 rohit@sharmalawfirm.com Attorney for Plaintiffs

I further certify that on October 29, 2007, I served the foregoing document by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on the following person who is not a registered participant of the ECF System:

Cynthia Gail Mirkes Sharma Law Firm PLLC 403 S Cheyenne Ave Ste 1200 Tulsa, OK 74103 Attorney for Plaintiffs

William J. Sanchez-Calderon Sanchez Law LLC 12915 SW 132 St., Ste. 5 Miami, FL 33186 Attorney for Plaintiffs

s/ Kevin L. McClure Kevin L. McClure
-23-

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO

)

CLERGY, INC; CONLAMIC-OKLAHOMA; )

CHURCH EFICAZ; CHURCH PIEDRA

)

ANGULAR; T-MAC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; )

CHILINO’S RESTAURANT; JOHN DOE ONE; )

JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JOHN )

DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; JOHN DOE

)

SIX; JOHN DOE SEVEN; JANE DOE ONE;

)

JANE DOE TWO; JANE DOE THREE;

)

JANE DOE FOUR; JANE DOE FIVE, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State

)

of Oklahoma, and DREW EDMONDSON,

)

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 07-CV-613-JHP

ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint [Docket No. 35]; Plaintiffs’ Response in Opposition to the Motion [Docket No. 36]; and Defendants’ Reply to the Response. [Docket No. 37]. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND A. Factual Background
On May 1, 2007, the Oklahoma Legislature passed the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (“the Act").1 On May 8, 2007, Oklahoma Governor Brad Henry signed the

1The Act is also referred to by some as “House Bill 1804" or “HB 1804". 1

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 2 of 18

Act into law, with a significant portion of the Act to become effective on November 1, 2007. The

Legislature apparently intended for the Act to combat the perceived illegal immigration problems

faced by the state of Oklahoma.

The Act is made up of fourteen distinct sections, eleven of which are substantive provisions.

Ten of the eleven substantive sections went into effect in full on November 1, 2007. Parts of Section

Seven of the Act do not go into effect until July 1, 2008. The eleven sections are now scattered

throughout various titles of the Oklahoma Code, separate and distinct laws sharing little more than

a common reason for enactment:

•

What was known as “Section Three” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat.

tit. 21, § 446. Section 446 creates criminal sanctions for certain instances of

transporting, concealing, harboring or sheltering an illegal alien.

•

“Section Four” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1550.42.

Section 1550.42 regulates who may create identification documents and

limits the issuance of certain types of such documents to United State

citizens, nationals, and legal permanent resident aliens.

•

“Section Five” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 171.2.

Section 171.2 creates a rebuttable presumption that a person who has been

determined to be an illegal alien is a flight risk for purposes of the issuance

of bail.

•

“Section Six” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1312. Section

1312 simply defines some of the terms contained within “Section Seven” of

the Act.

•

“Section Seven” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1313.

Section 1313 requires public employers to use a Status Verification System

to verify the federal employment authorization status of all new employees.

After July 1, 2008, § 1313 will prohibit public employers who do not use a

Status Verification System from entering into any contracts with the state.

Section 1313 will also allow United States citizens who are discharged from

their job to sue their employer, if the employer has on their payroll an illegal

alien hired after July 1, 2008. Employers who participate in a Status

Verification System are immune from any suit arising out of § 1313.

2

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 3 of 18

•

“Section Eight” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 56, § 71. Section

71 requires every state agency to verify the citizenship status of anyone

applying for most types of state, local, or federal benefits administered by the

agency. Applicants for benefits must verify their legal status by executing an

affidavit attesting to their lawful presence in the United States.

•

“Section Nine” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 68, § 2385.32.

Section 2385.32 requires those contracting with individual independent

contractors to withhold state income taxes at the top marginal rate if the

individual independent contractor fails to provide documentation of his or her

lawful presence in the United States.

•

“Section Ten” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 20j. Section

20j authorizes and directs the Attorney General of Oklahoma to negotiate a

memorandum of understanding between the State of Oklahoma and the

United States Department of Justice or the United States Department of

Homeland Security. The memorandum would deal with the enforcement of

federal immigration and customs laws, detention and removals, and

investigations in the State of Oklahoma. Section 20j(E) also prohibits persons

and agencies from prohibiting, or in any way restricting, the exchange or

maintenance of information regarding the legal status of any individual.

Section 20j also creates a private cause of action by any legal person lawfully

domiciled in the state to file for a writ of mandamus compelling any non-

cooperating local or state governmental agency to comply with § 20j(E).

•

“Section Eleven” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 3242.2.

Section 3242.2 makes most illegal aliens ineligible for any post-secondary

educational benefit, including scholarships, financial aid, and resident tuition.

•

“Section Twelve” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 74, § 151.2.

Section 151.2 creates a state Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit as

part of the Department of Public Safety.

•

“Section Thirteen” of the Act is now codified as Okla. Stat. tit. 70, § 3242.

Section 3242 simply sets forth standards for determining the eligibility for

post-secondary educational benefits.

B. Procedural Background

A group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Act on October

15, 2007 (Case No. CIV-07-594). Those plaintiffs sought a declaration of unconstitutionality as well

3

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 4 of 18
as a permanent injunction enjoining the enforcement of the Act. In an October 22, 2007 order, the Court addressed the concerns it had over the broad nature of the plaintiffs’ complaint:
While a constitutional vetting of HB 1804 would serve the interest of all parties to this litigation, the interest of the public would best be served by a sharpening of the issues presented prior to such a vetting. Such a sharpening can only be achieved through a suit brought by Plaintiffs with well-defined injuries causally connected to HB 1804. National Coalition of Latino Clergy, Inc. v. Henry, No. CIV-07-594, slip op. at 11 (N.D.Okla. October 22, 2007). The Court was convinced that by narrowing the issues, and by limiting the pool of plaintiffs to those who had actually been injured by the Act, the more troublesome provisions of the Act could receive the vigorous and focused constitutional scrutiny that the law demands. Unfortunately, that constitutional scrutiny was rendered impossible by the plaintiffs’ failure to establish standing in their complaint, and the Court dismissed the suit sua sponte, holding that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing. Plaintiffs filed the present lawsuit on October 25, 2007, once again challenging the constitutionality of the Act, as well as the constitutionality of five other state statutes relating to the issuance and renewal of driver’s licenses. Plaintiffs’ complaint2 is breathtakingly broad. By the Court’s count, the seventy-six page complaint attempts to challenge sixteen separate statutes, under twenty-one different state and federal constitutional provisions and statutes, and on behalf of eighteen different plaintiffs. The complaint seeks declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, and also sought a preliminary injunction in order to stop the Act from going into effect on November 1, 2007. The Court heard argument on the preliminary injunction at an October 31, 2007 hearing, and
2Plaintiffs amended their complaint on October 31, 2007, and it is to this amended complaint that the Court refers.
4

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 5 of 18
subsequently denied the preliminary injunction, holding that Plaintiffs had failed to establish their right to a preliminary injunction.
On November 6, 2007, the Defendants filed the instant Motion to Dismiss the amended complaint. Defendants seek dismissal of the suit on four separate grounds. Defendants allege that: (1) the Plaintiffs have failed to state claims upon which relief can be granted; (2) the Governor and the Attorney General are improper parties; (3) Plaintiffs lack standing; and (4) the Court should abstain from hearing the lawsuit. Plaintiffs contest each claim made by the Defendants and ask the Court to deny the motion. The Court addresses standing first.
DISCUSSION A. Standing
Standing is the threshold question in every federal case, and determines the court’s power to entertain the dispute. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975). In cases of this nature, where Plaintiffs are asking the Court to invoke Article III powers to inject itself into the workings of the executive branch, the necessity of standing is of particular importance. State of Utah v. Babbitt, 137 F.3d 1193, 1202 (10th Cir. 1998).
The Supreme Court has established that the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing” contains three elements: (1) the plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” a concrete and particularized invasion of a legally protected interest which is actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) there must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of; and (3) it must be likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision. Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) (internal quotations omitted).
5

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 6 of 18
While the Supreme Court has recognized that a plaintiff “does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventative relief,”Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 (1923), a plaintiff seeking preventative relief is not relieved of their burden of establishing an “injury in fact” under Lujan’s first prong. The Court has consistently maintained that the “federal judicial power is to be exercised...only at the instance of one who is himself immediately harmed, or immediately threatened with harm, by the challenged action.” Poe v. Ullman, 367 U.S. 497, 504 (1961) (emphasis added). Lujan is instructive as to what constitutes such “immediate” harm and the lesson of Lujan is clear: mere allegations that at some point in the future an injury might occur are not enough to establish standing. What is required is a more particularized allegation showing that an injury will occur at a certain time in the future.
With those standards in mind, the Court examines each Plaintiff to determine whether they have standing to challenge any of the state statutes in question.
1. CONLAMIC-USA and CONLAMIC-Oklahoma CONLAMIC-USA is an association of Latino clergymen. CONLAMIC-USA alleges no injury on the part of the association, but instead alleges that individual members of the association have been injured by Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446. The Supreme Court has long recognized that an association has standing to sue on behalf of its members when: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977). The Court is satisfied that the second and third prongs of the
6

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 7 of 18
three-pronged Hunt test are satisfied here. The Court’s analysis, therefore, focuses on whether any of CONLAMIC-USA’s individual members have standing.
CONLAMIC-USA alleges that it has thirty pastor members in Tulsa County. Further, CONLAMIC-USA asserts these pastors transport illegal aliens as part of their church work and, as a result, fear prosecution under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446. As individuals, these pastors could be subject to prosecution under section 446 should state law enforcement agencies decide that the transportation of church members falls within the letter and spirit of § 446.
The Court, however, is concerned with the lack of specificity in CONLAMIC-USA’s assertion that “30 pastors in Tulsa County [a]re members of CONLAMIC.”3 Such a lack of specificity makes it impossible for the Court to determine whether any individual member of CONLAMIC-USA has standing. Although this is an easily curable defect, the Court cannot find associational standing on the part of CONLAMIC-USA unless CONLAMIC-USA identifies an individual member pastor that would have standing to sue.4
Because CONLAMIC-USA has failed to identify an individual member that would have standing to sue, CONLAMIC-USA does not have standing to sue as an association. Therefore, CONLAMIC-USA is dismissed from the suit for lack of standing. CONLAMIC-Oklahoma is simply the Oklahoma branch of CONLAMIC-USA. Having found that CONLAMIC-USA lacks standing to challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446, CONLAMIC-Oklahoma similarly lacks standing.
3The Complaint does identify one pastor by name, a pastor “Julian Rodriguez.” (Compl. ¶ 21.) But Pastor Julian is never identified as a member of CONLAMIC-USA.
4Merriam-Webster defines "identify" as "to establish the identity of." Webster's Third New International Dictionary 1123 (Philip Babcock Gove, Ph.D. ed., 2002).
7

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 8 of 18
2. Church Eficaz and Church Piedra Angular Church Eficaz and Church Piedra Angular each alleges fear of criminal prosecution under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446 because of the Churches’ transport of illegal alien church members. The Churches’ fear is wholly unfounded. Only “persons,” not entities like the Churches, are subject to criminal prosecution under § 446. Because the Churches can not be prosecuted under § 446, they have no standing to challenge that law. Church Piedra Angular also alleges injury based on its status as an employer. The Church alleges Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1313 requires “burdensome and time consuming” participation in a Status Verification System to assure insulation from legal action. However, § 1313 does not become effective until after July 1, 2008: It shall be a discriminatory practice for an employing entity to discharge an employee working in Oklahoma who is a United States citizen or permanent resident alien while retaining an employee who the employing entity knows, or reasonably should have known, is an unauthorized alien hired after July 1, 2008, and who is working in Oklahoma in a job category that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which is performed under similar working conditions, as defined by 29 U.S.C., Section 206(d)(1), as the job category held by the discharged employee. Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1313 (emphasis added). Although the Church claims that “participation in a Status verification system after November 1, 2007 is necessitated by [the statute],” that is simply not the case. (Compl. ¶ 33.) As the statute makes clear, a cause of action only arises after July 1, 2008, and even then only applies to employers who have hired an illegal alien after that date. Therefore, the Church derives no benefit from use of a Status Verification System until July 1, 2008, and thus cannot claim that § 1313 somehow necessitated its use of such a system beginning November 1, 2007.
8

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 9 of 18
As a result, the injury alleged by Church Piedra Angular is both too speculative and nonimminent to provide standing. Church Piedra Angular asks this Court to look seven months into the future, presume that the Church will hire an illegal alien, fire a United States citizen, retain the illegal alien, and then be sued by a United States citizen. This alleged injury is not the “imminent” injury envisioned by the Lujan court. Therefore, Church Piedra Angular has no standing to challenge § 1313.
Because Church Eficaz only challenges § 446, and the Court has found it lacks standing to challenge that statute, Church Eficaz is dismissed from the suit for lack of standing. Because Church Piedra Angular only challenges § 446 and § 1313, and the Court has found it lacks standing to challenge both statutes, Church Piedra Angular is dismissed from the suit for lack of standing.
3. T-Mac Construction, Inc. and Chilino’s Restaurant T-Mac Construction and Chilino’s Restaurant, like Church Piedra Angular, claim that Okla. Stat. tit. 25, § 1313 injures them by requiring the “burdensome and time consuming” act of participating in a Status Verification System. For the same reasons as articulated above, this alleged injury is both too speculative and non-imminent to provide standing. Therefore, neither T-Mac Construction nor Chilino’s Restaurant have standing to challenge § 1313. T-Mac Construction also claims that it owns four rental properties and “[b]ecause of HB 1804, Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. will no longer rent the properties to undocumented aliens.” T-Mac does not explain how any section of HB 1804 prevents it from renting to undocumented aliens. Presumably T-Mac fears criminal prosecution under Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446, but like the Church Plaintiffs, that fear is unfounded. Only “persons,” and not corporate entities such as a T-
9

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 10 of 18
Mac, are subject to criminal prosecution under § 446. Therefore, T-Mac Construction has no standing to challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446.
Because Chilino’s Restaurant only challenges § 1313, and the Court has found it lacks standing to challenge that statute, Chilino’s is dismissed from the suit for lack of standing. Because T-Mac Construction only challenges § 1313 and § 446, and the Court has found it lacks standing to challenge both statutes, T-Mac is dismissed from the suit for lack of standing.
4. The Individual Plaintiffs Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges a singly injury to the individual plaintiffs as a whole (the John and Jane Does collectively). The individual Plaintiffs allege that “if, after November 1, 2007, they are arrested for violation of Section 3 of HB 1804, a felony, they will be denied bail pursuant to Section 5 of HB 1804." (Compl. ¶ 81.) The individual Plaintiffs, therefore, ask this Court to presume that they will engage in criminal activity, be arrested, prosecuted, and denied bail by a judge relying on Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 171.2. The Court cannot engage in such presumptions. This alleged injury is strikingly speculative and cannot sustain standing. See O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974) (discriminatory bail practices challenged; no standing because possibility that plaintiffs—none of whom had been subject to the discriminatory bail practices—would later violate law was too remote). The Court therefore finds that no individual plaintiff has standing to challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 22, § 171.2. 5. John Doe Two John Doe Two, an illegal alien, alleges no unique injuries as a result of any state statute. (See Compl. ¶¶ 56-58.) Therefore, he has no standing to sue and is dismissed from this action.
10

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 11 of 18
6. John Does Three, Four, Five, Six, and Seven and Jane Does Two, Three, Four, and Five
These illegal alien John and Jane Doe Plaintiffs each allege that they have either been evicted or threatened with eviction from their rental properties because of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 446. These Plaintiffs allege that their landlords fear that continuing to rent to these illegal aliens would subject the landlords to prosecution under § 446. The Court is satisfied that the loss, or imminent loss, of one’s apartment or rental house is an actual or concrete injury, and the allegation that this injury was caused by § 446 is enough to survive a constitutional standing analysis at the motion to dismiss stage. Because each of these John and Jane Does have alleged concrete injury caused by § 446, they have Article III standing to challenge its constitutionality.
7. Jane Doe One Jane Doe One, an illegal alien, alleges that her license will expire in March 2008. She claims that Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1550.42 and Okla. Stat. tit. 47, §§ 6-115 and 6-122 will prevent her license from being renewed. While § 1550.42 and § 6-115 govern an illegal aliens ability to obtain a driver’s license, § 6-122 simply says that aliens may not renew their licenses by mail. Jane Doe One makes no allegation that she intends to renew her license by mail. In order to have standing to challenge § 6-122, Jane Doe One must show how that statute has injured or threatens to injure her. While the Court is satisfied that the injury Jane Doe One alleges will be caused by § 1550.42 and § 6-115 in March 2008 is imminent enough to provide standing, the Court is not satisfied that Jane Doe One has properly alleged any injury as a result of § 6-122. Because Jane Doe Two has properly alleged threatened injury as a result of Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1550.42 and Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-115, she has standing to challenge those two statutes. Jane Doe Two does not have standing to challenge Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-122.
11

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 12 of 18

8. John Doe One John Doe One, an illegal alien, alleges that Okla. Stat. tit. 47, § 6-103(A)(9) caused him to

be denied an Oklahoma driver’s license. Section 6-103(A)(9) forbids the Department of Public

safety from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal aliens. By alleging that this statute was the cause of

the denial of his license, John Doe One has properly alleged a concrete injury and has Article III

standing to challenge its constitutionality.

9. Conclusion

After examining each Plaintiff’s claims, the Court has determined that the following

Plaintiffs have Article III standing to challenge the following statutes:

•

John Doe One, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 47 § 6-103(A)(9);

•

John Doe Three, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

John Doe Four, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

John Doe Five, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

John Doe Six, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

John Doe Seven, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

Jane Doe One, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 1550.42 and Okla. Stat. tit. 47 §§

6-115;

•

Jane Doe Two, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

Jane Doe Three, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

Jane Doe Four, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446;

•

and Jane Doe Five, challenging Okla. Stat. tit. 21 § 446.

The following Plaintiffs are dismissed from the case for lack of Article III standing:

•

CONLAMIC-USA;

•

CONLAMIC-Oklahoma;

•

Church Eficaz;

•

Church Piedra Angular;

•

T-Mac Construction;

•

Chilino’s Restaurant;

•

and John Doe Two.

The Court’s standing analysis does not end here. Standing jurisprudence “contains two

strands: Article III standing, which enforces the Constitution's case-or-controversy requirement,

12

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 13 of 18
...and prudential standing, which embodies judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 11-12 (2004) (citations omitted)(quotations omitted). Having determined that the remaining Plaintiffs have Article III standing, the Court must now examine whether any prudential grounds exist for denying standing. B. Prudential Limitations on Standing
Standing’s two strands revolve around a common theme: “the focus is on the party, not the claim itself.” 13 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3531, at 338 (Supp.2007). The prudential strand of the standing doctrine is the recognition that sometimes courts must refuse to hear claims brought by litigants who are not properly situated. Id.
The Supreme Court has recognized that prudential standing encompasses, “the general prohibition on a litigant's raising another person's legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff's complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751 (1984). However, the Court has also recognized that such self-imposed limits might need to be imposed in unique cases, therefore, the Court has declined to “exhaustively defin[e] the prudential dimensions of the standing doctrine.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12 (2004).
Indeed, Elk Grove illustrates the Supreme Court’s recent willingness to invoke prudential standing in cases falling outside of the three categories articulated in Allen. In Elk Grove, the Court held that “it is improper for [a] federal cour[t] to entertain a claim by a plaintiff whose standing to sue is founded on family law rights that are in dispute when prosecution of the lawsuit may have an
13

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 14 of 18
adverse effect on the person who is the source of the plaintiff's claimed standing.” Elk Grove Unified School Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. at 17. Factually, the case involved an atheist father bringing suit against his daughter’s school district because the school district required each elementary school class to recite the Pledge of Allegiance each morning. The child’s mother—who was divorced from the plaintiff father—filed a motion to intervene or dismiss claiming that she had exclusive legal custody under a state court order and that, as her daughter's sole legal custodian, she felt it was not in the child's interest to be a party to the father’s suit. Id. at 1. The Court made no attempt to shoehorn the case into one of the three previously recognized categories of prudential standing. Instead, the Court reasoned that its long recognized unwillingness to hear domestic relations cases, and unwillingness to hear cases involving “difficult questions of state law bearing on policy problems of substantial public import whose importance transcends the result in the case then at bar,” made it appropriate for it to prudentially decline to recognize standing on the part of the plaintiff father.5 Id. at 12-13 (citing Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992); and Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 814 (1976)). As the Court noted, “when matters of great national significance are at stake,” federal courts must “guard jealously and exercise rarely [their] power to make constitutional pronouncements.” Id. at 12.
While the case now before the Court similarly does not fall into one of the three categories articulated in Allen, the Court is nonetheless persuaded that the present case involves the type of unique facts that led the Elk Grove Court to recognize that not all prudential limitations on standing
5The Elk Grove Court’s invocation of the “domestic relations exception,” and the abstention doctrine of Colorado River, highlight just how intertwined those discretionary doctrines are with prudential standing. In fact, it is difficult to distinguish the abstention doctrines, from the prudential standing doctrines, from the equitable doctrines of laches and unclean hands. However courts might clothe the idea, the end result is the same: a federal court declining to entertain a suit it is otherwise free to adjudicate.
14

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 15 of 18
would fall into such neat categories. This Court is convinced that the proper remedy for the injuries alleged by the remaining Plaintiffs—all of whom are in willing violation of federal immigration law—is not judicial intervention, rather, it is simple compliance with federal immigration law. Therefore, the Court must prudentially decline to recognize standing on the part of these plaintiffs. In reaching this conclusion, the Court recognizes that illegal aliens have been deemed to be clothed with the protections of certain Constitutional rights. See Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (extending protections of Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause to illegal alien children). The Court’s focus, however, is not on the illegal alien Plaintiffs’ claims—nor the rights underlying those claims—it is on the Plaintiffs themselves.
In focusing on the illegal alien Plaintiffs here, the Court is reminded that courts have customarily declined to entertain cases involving plaintiffs with “unclean hands.” Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). This equitable maxim—that “he who comes into equity must come with clean hands”—is a judicial closing of the courthouse doors to those tainted with inequitableness or bad faith related to the matter in which they now seek relief. Id. In the present case, the Court is deeply concerned by the implications of the illegal Plaintiffs’ admission of violations of federal immigration laws.6 These Plaintiffs admit their violation of federal law, and then ask this Court to allow them to file suit anonymously, so as to avoid detection by the federal law enforcement agencies tasked with investigating immigration violations. Additionally, the illegal alien Plaintiffs make no attempt to
6The underlying illegality here — the admitted violations of federal immigration law — is directly, even causally, related to the injuries the illegal alien Plaintiffs ask this Court to remedy. A wholly different situation is presented by, for example, an illegal alien negligently injured in a car accident. In that case, the illegal alien plaintiff could certainly bring suit to recover for their injuries because their illegal presence in this country is in no way related to their negligence cause of action. Similarly, an illegal alien criminal defendant deprived of certain due process rights could certainly challenge that deprivation because the injury in that case would be unrelated to the defendant’s status as an illegal alien.
15

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 16 of 18
validate their unlawful presence in this country. Indeed, curiously absent from their voluminous complaint is any challenge to the federal laws rendering their presence in this country illegal.7 Instead, these Plaintiffs seemingly concede the validity of the federal immigration laws, and file this suit in order to remove any barriers the state of Oklahoma has erected to their continued violation of those federal laws. These illegal alien Plaintiffs seek nothing more than to use this Court as a vehicle for their continued unlawful presence in this country. To allow these Plaintiffs to do so would make this Court an “abetter of iniquity” and this Court finds that simply unpalatable.8 See id.
The Court would perhaps reach a different conclusion if this case involved children plaintiffs whose unlawful presence in this country was involuntary. See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 220. Indeed, the Plyler Court made it clear that the result in that case was predicated, in large part, on the fact that the illegal alien children plaintiffs’ unlawful presence in the country was not of their own volition:
At the least, those who elect to enter our territory by stealth and in violation of our law should be prepared to bear the consequences, including, but not limited to, deportation. But the children of those illegal entrants are not comparably situated. Their parents have the ability to conform their conduct to societal norms, and presumably the ability to remove themselves from the State's jurisdiction; but the children who are plaintiffs in these cases can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status.
7This would perhaps be a different case if the illegal alien Plaintiffs were in fact challenging their underlying immigration status. Such a challenge would at least show a good faith effort to conform with federal law.
8While the situation here is vastly more benign, the Court can envision a scenario where a foreign member and supporter of a known terrorist organization could enter the country illegally, make their way to Oklahoma, anonymously—to avoid arrest by federal authorities—file a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1268, et. seq. (the “Oklahoma Antiterrorism Act”), admit in their lawsuit that they are in violation of multiple federal anti-terrorism statutes, and expect this Court to entertain their challenge to the state anti-terrorism law designed to bolster the federal law. Surely this Court would not be required to allow that anonymous Plaintiff to bring suit.
16

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 17 of 18
Id. (quotations omitted). The illegal alien Plaintiffs in the present case, like the parents in Plyler, have chosen to enter and remain in this country in violation of federal law. For these Plaintiffs, the remedy for their alleged injuries is simple: act in accordance with federal law.9
The Court, therefore, recognizes a new, and narrow, prudential limitation on standing. An illegal alien, in willful violation of federal immigration law, is without standing to challenge the constitutionality of a state law, when compliance with federal law would absolve the illegal alien’s constitutional dilemma—particularly when the challenged state law was enacted to discourage violation of the federal immigration law. In recognizing this narrow prudential limitation on standing, the Court does not shirk its responsibility to pass on the constitutionality of a law when properly called to do so, the Court just requires that the call come from a plaintiff not in unabashed violation of federal law.
CONCLUSION The Court is again confronted with plaintiffs bringing a broad array of constitutional and statutory challenges to a similarly broad array of state statutes. Again, some Plaintiffs ignore the need to describe the injuries actually caused by the challenged statutes, while the illegal alien Plaintiffs complain of grievances that could best be remedied by simply compliance with federal law. Both categories of Plaintiffs must be dismissed for lack of standing, either on constitutional or prudential grounds. The delicate balance of powers between the three branches of our federal government demands the Court engage in a rigorous standing analysis. The law of standing creates a check on
9It is also important to note that this holding does not render the Oklahoma laws immune from challenge. Several of the non-illegal alien Plaintiffs lacking constitutional standing lack such standing because of easily curable defects in the pleadings. A well-pled complaint is all that is needed to cure those defects, thus allowing the challenge to move forward with plaintiffs not in violation of federal law.
17

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 39 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/12/2007 Page 18 of 18
the power of the judiciary that is essential to the maintenance of that balance of powers. Issues involved in this case clearly highlight the need to revisit the concept of separation of powers. Not only are Plaintiffs asking this Court to become involved in matters reserved for the state of Oklahoma’s executive branch, the statutes these Plaintiffs ask the Court to enjoin received overwhelming bi-partisan support from the popularly elected Oklahoma state legislature. The Court recognizes that popular support does not render a law constitutional, nor does it relieve the Court of its duty to examine a law’s constitutionality, but popular support does make this Court particularly sensitive to the fact that its duty to examine a law’s constitutionality arises only after the law of standing is satisfied. Cognizant of this, the Court is reminded: “All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III, [r]elate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.” Vander Jagt v. O'Neill, 699 F.2d 1166, 1178-79 (D.C.Cir.1983) (Bork, J., concurring)). That “idea” is exactly why Article III of the United States Constitution does not give litigants an absolute right to have their claims heard by a federal court, and that “idea” is why this Court rigorously adheres to the law of standing.
For the reasons set forth above, all Plaintiffs are dismissed for lack of standing. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is therefore GRANTED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
18

 
 Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 48 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/28/2007 Page 1 of 5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA

NATIONAL COALITION OF LATINO

)

CLERGY, INC; CONLAMIC-OKLAHOMA; )

CHURCH EFICAZ; CHURCH PIEDRA

)

ANGULAR; T-MAC CONSTRUCTION, INC.; )

CHILINO’S RESTAURANT; JOHN DOE ONE; )

JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JOHN )

DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; JOHN DOE

)

SIX; JOHN DOE SEVEN; JANE DOE ONE;

)

JANE DOE TWO; JANE DOE THREE;

)

JANE DOE FOUR; JANE DOE FIVE, et al.

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

BRAD HENRY, Governor of the State

)

of Oklahoma, and DREW EDMONDSON,

)

Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma.

)

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. 07-CV-613-JHP

ORDER AND OPINION Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Judgment [Docket No. 42].1 Plaintiffs’ ask
the Court to reconsider its Order [Docket No. 40] granting Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Docket
No. 35]. Plaintiffs also seek leave to file a second amended complaint. The Motion to Vacate
Judgment raises six issues for reconsideration, whether:
1. Plaintiff Church Eficaz has associational standing to challenge 21 O.S.§ 446 on behalf of its members;
2. Employer Plaintiffs have standing to challenge 25 O.S. § 1313;
1Because Plaintiffs’ Motion is brought pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e), 60(b), and 15(a) it is in actuality a Motion to Alter or Amend a Judgment, a Motion for Relief from a Final Judgment and Order, and a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.
1

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 48 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/28/2007 Page 2 of 5
3. Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. has standing to challenge 21 O.S. § 446; 4. Plaintiffs John Doe 2 and Jane Doe 1 have standing to challenge 56 O.S. § 71; 5. Individual Plaintiffs have standing to challenge 22 O.S. § 171.2; and 6. Individual Plaintiffs have prudential standing. (Pl.’s Mot. at 1-2.) The Court addresses each issue in turn.
DISCUSSION A. Whether Plaintiff Church Eficaz has associational standing to challenge 21 O.S. § 446 on behalf of its members
Although it would be possible for Church Eficaz to have brought a claim based on associational standing, the complaint does not assert such a claim. Instead, the complaint asserts a claim on behalf of the church itself, not a claim by the church on behalf of any individual member. (Compl. ¶¶ 15-22.) Even if the complaint was construed as asserting an associational claim, Plaintiffs’ claim that the complaint identifies an individual member with standing is not supported by the text of the complaint. The complaint mentions a “Julian Rodriguez” by name in paragraphs 21-22, but the complaint fails to describe an injury suffered by this identified individual:
21. Plaintiff Church Eficaz’ pastor, Julian Rodriguez, has ministered to hundreds of church members for over nine years. Since passage of HB 1804, he has visited the jails and found numerous instances of individuals who believed they were stopped by local Oklahoma police because they appeared “Latino” or otherwise “foreign”.
22. Pastor Julian has ministered in the jails for over four months and has never seen as many detained Latino immigrants as he has seen after passage of HB 1804. Pastor Julian believes that the local Oklahoma police have been emboldened by the language of HB 1804, especially in light of statements made by he [sic] bill’s author, Oklahoma State Rep. Randy Terrill – “It would be just fine with me if we exported all illegal aliens to the surrounding states.” See enclosed Exhibit “B”, September 26, 2007 USA Today newspaper article.
2

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 48 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/28/2007 Page 3 of 5
(Compl. ¶¶ 21-22.) Because the complaint fails to identify an individual member of Church Eficaz who has suffered a concrete and particularized injury, the Court cannot find associational standing on the part of Church Eficaz. Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is therefore DENIED. B. Whether Employer Plaintiffs have standing to challenge 25 O.S. § 1313
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order of dismissal [Docket No.40], Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is DENIED. C. Whether Plaintiff T-Mac Construction, Inc. has standing to challenge 21 O.S. § 446
The Court acknowledges that since 1910 Oklahoma law has made it possible for a corporation to be held criminally liable under a statute criminalizing acts committed by a “person”. See Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 105. However, Plaintiffs have cited no case authority—and the Court is aware of no reported case in the ninety-eight year existence of § 105—where that statute has led to the prosecution of a corporate entity.2 Given the state of Oklahoma’s longstanding unwillingness to prosecute corporate entities under statutes like § 446,3 the Court is convinced that T-Mac’s alleged fear of criminal prosecution is speculative and unfounded. Plaintiffs “having no fears of state prosecution except those that are imaginary or speculative, are not to be accepted as appropriate plaintiffs.” Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat. Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 (1979) (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42 (1971)).
Furthermore, even if the Court were to determine that T-Mac’s decision to refrain from renting to illegal aliens was based on a well-grounded fear of criminal prosecution, nothing in the
2 The Court is aware of instances where corporations have been criminally fined by the state of Oklahoma, but only in cases where the text of the statute in question contemplated the punishment of a corporation. See e.g. Hardeman King Co. v. State, 233 P. 792 (Okla.Crim.App. 1925)(Involving a statute making it unlawful for any “person, firm, or corporation to sell any agricultural seed which are falsely marked or labeled.”).
3The Court is also unaware of any instances where the United States of America has criminally prosecuted a corporation for violating 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii), the federal statute mirroring § 446 .
3

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 48 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/28/2007 Page 4 of 5
complaint establishes that T-Mac’s decision to stop renting to illegal aliens is what has caused TMac’s inability to find tenants for its rental properties. Without that causal connection, the Court must construe T-Mac’s alleged injury not as loss of rental revenue, but as simple fear of criminal prosecution. However, assuming for the sake of argument that this fear is non-speculative, the Court is not convinced that such fear can provide the basis for standing because § 446 does not appear to criminalize any behavior not already punishable by 8 U.S.C.A. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). See Roe 1 v. Prince William County, 2007 WL 4269575, 5 (E.D.Va. 2007) (Because the challenged laws did not “criminalize behavior that was not already punishable by local, state, or federal ordinance, ...fear of such punishment does not create a cognizable injury”).
Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is therefore DENIED. D. Whether Plaintiffs John Doe 2 and Jane Doe 1 have standing to challenge 56 O.S. § 71
In order to establish standing, the complaint must identify plaintiffs with concrete and particularized injuries, causally related to a challenged statute, and redressable by a favorable ruling. Even construed liberally, paragraphs 57-58 of the amended complaint simply fail to meet that standard.4 Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is therefore DENIED. E. Whether Individual Plaintiffs have standing to challenge 22 O.S. § 171.2
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order of dismissal [Docket No.40], Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is DENIED. F. Whether Individual Plaintiffs have prudential standing
For the reasons set forth in the Court’s Order of dismissal [Docket No.40], Plaintiffs’ motion to reconsider this issue is DENIED.
4Additionally, assuming these illegal alien Plaintiffs had constitutional standing, they would not survive the Court’s prudential standing analysis.
4

Case 4:07-cv-00613-JHP-FHM Document 48 Filed in USDC ND/OK on 12/28/2007 Page 5 of 5 CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Vacate Judgment is DENIED. Therefore, the Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint contained within the Motion to Vacate Judgment is MOOT. IT IS SO ORDERED.
5

 
 USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 1 of 7
CLOSED,DISCREF
U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07−cv−00613−JHP−FHM

National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. et al v. Henry et al Assigned to: Judge James H Payne Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Date Terminated: 12/12/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc.

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes Cynthia Mirkes 11916 N 108TH E AVE COLLINSVILLE, OK 74021 352−213−1318 Email: cynthiamirkes@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma Sharma Law Firm PLLC 403 S CHEYENNE AVE STE 1200 TULSA, OK 74103 918−398−0327 Fax: 918−516−0232 Email: ROHITSHARMA@GMAIL.COM LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon Sanchez Law LLC 12915 SW 132ND ST STE 5 MIAMI, FL 33186 305−232−8889 Fax: 305−232−8819 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CONLAMIC − Oklahoma

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Church Eficaz

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 2 of 7

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mexico Lindo Restaurants TERMINATED: 10/31/2007

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Doe suing as: John Doe One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Jane Doe One, Two, Three, Four, Five et al

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
T−Mac Construction T−Mac Construction, Inc.

represented by Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 3 of 7

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chilino's Restaurant Chilino's Restaurant

represented by Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Brad Henry Governor of the State of Oklahoma
Defendant Drew Edmondson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma

represented by Kevin Lynn McClure Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−521−4274 Fax: 405−521−4518 Email: kevin.mcclure@oag.ok.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Daniel Weitman Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−521−3921 Fax: 405−521−4518 Email: Dan.Weitman@oag.ok.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra D Rinehart Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−521−3921 Fax: 405−522−0669 Email: fc.docket@oag.state.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
2 COMPLAINT against all defendants by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
3 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 4 of 7

10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/26/2007 10/28/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007

4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Rohit C Sharma on behalf of Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
7 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, directing National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma, Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular and Mexico Lindo Restaurants to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within five (5) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non−court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
8 MINUTE ORDER, reassigning case to Judge James H Payne, Judge Gregory K Frizzell no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 07−cv−613−JHP−FHM (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
9 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ; granting 5 Motion for Hearing, Motion Hearing set for 10/31/2007 at 02:00 PM before Judge James H Payne (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Plaintiff is directed to file the appropriate 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statements by 4:30 on 10/29/07 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
11 PRO HAC VICE FEES Paid for attorney(s) Cynthia Mirkes in the amount of $75.00 (Re: 6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice ) (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
49 FILING FEES Paid in Full by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Sandra D Rinehart on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Rinehart, Sandra) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
13 MOTION for Attorney(s) William J. Sanchez to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 363437) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/28/2007)
14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by M Daniel Weitman on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by M Daniel Weitman on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 5 of 7

10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007
10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007

16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Kevin Lynn McClure on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (McClure, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
17 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation Motion to Extended Briefing by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
18 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, CONLAMIC−Oklahoma, Church Eficaz (Iglesia Eficaz), Iglesia Piedra Angular by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) Modified on 10/30/2007 to remove Mexico Lindo Restaurants and John Doe as filers(lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/29/2007)
19 MOTION to Dismiss by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (With attachments) (McClure, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
20 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to CONLAMIC−Oklahoma and Mexico Lindo by Mexico Lindo Restaurants, CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
21 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Defendant leave to file a Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss not to exceed 35 pages ; granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss ) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/31/2007 THIS ORDER VACATED/SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO 23 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/30/2007)
22 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to Cynthia Mirkes and William Sanchez ; granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
23 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Correcting Minute Order 21 to reflect that Defendants are granted leave to file a RESPONSE to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction not to exceed 35 pages, vacating/setting aside order(s) (Re: 21 Minute Order,,,, Ruling on Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) (Documents Terminated: 21 Minute Order,,,, Ruling on Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Brad Henry − Served on 10/30/2007. by Church Eficaz; Church Piedra Angular; Mexico Lindo Restaurants; John Doe; National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc.; CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Attorney General − Served on 10/26/2007 by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson ; (With attachments) (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) Modified on 11/1/2007 to add all filers (sac, Dpty

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 6 of 7

10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007 11/01/2007
11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 12/06/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/14/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007

Clk). (Entered: 10/31/2007)
29 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to T−Mac Construction by T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
30 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to Chilino's Restaurant by Chilino's Restaurant (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
31 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge James H Payne : Motion Hearing held on 10/31/2007 ; finding as moot 19 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated), 19 MOTION to Dismiss ) (Court Reporter: Ken Sidwell) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
32 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Following the hearing held this date, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due 11/6/07, Responses are due by 4:00 on 11/8/07, Replies are due by 4:00 on 11/9/07 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
33 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
34 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, directing T−Mac Corporation, Chilino's Restaurant to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within five (5) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non−court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (With attachments) (Weitman, M) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson ; (Weitman, M) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
38 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Motion Hearing held on 10/31/2007 before Judge James H Payne (Court Reporter: Ken Sidwell) (Pages: 28) (Re: 31 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, ) (kns, CrtRptr) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
39 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; granting 35 Motion to Dismiss (Documents Terminated: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 39 ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
40 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne (correcting clerical error in 39 ) (Re: 39 Opinion and Order, Dismissing/Terminating Case, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
41 JUDGMENT by Judge James H Payne, entering judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs (terminates case) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
42 MOTION to Vacate Order/Judgment by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 11/18/2014 05:32 PM CST Page 7 of 7

12/21/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007
12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 01/31/2008 02/01/2008

43 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 42 MOTION to Vacate Order/Judgment ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
44 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants (Re: 28 Amended Complaint, ) by National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. (Mirkes, Cynthia) Modified on 1/2/2008 to add watermark pursuant to 45 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/27/2007)
46 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Tim Harris, David Prater, Kevin Ward, Stanley Glanz, John Whetsel, Kenneth Kendricks, Howard H Hendrick (Submitted as Doc # 44 , redocketed to add defendants and create proper answer records) (Re: 2 Complaint, 28 Amended Complaint, ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (lml, Dpty Clk) Modified on 1/2/2008 THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN/WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO 47 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/28/2007)
45 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Striking Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to obtain leave of court pursuant to FRCP 15(a), striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 44 Amended Complaint ) (Documents Terminated: 44 Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
***Remark: Defendants Tim Harris, David Prater, Kevin Ward, Stanley Glanz, John Whetsel, Kenneth Kendricks, and Howard H Hendrick were deleted, as they were added in error by the Clerk's office (Re: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
47 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk : Striking docket entry #46 Second Amended Complaint as entered in error, striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (Documents Terminated: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
48 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 42 Motion to Vacate Order/Judgment (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
50 JUDGMENT by Judge James H Payne, entering judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs (terminates case) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 2/4/2008 to add STRICKEN watermark − see 51 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/31/2008)
51 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Due to clerical error the judgment (50) is hereby stricken as was previously entered on 12/20/07, striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 50 Judgment, Entering Judgment ) (Documents Terminated: 50 Judgment, Entering Judgment ) (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

 
 USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 1 of 7
CLOSED, DISCREF
U.S. District Court U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:07−cv−00613−JHP−FHM

National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. et al v. Henry et al Assigned to: Judge James H Payne Referred to: Magistrate Judge Frank H McCarthy Cause: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 10/25/2007 Date Terminated: 12/12/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc.

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes Cynthia Mirkes 11916 N 108TH E AVE COLLINSVILLE, OK 74021 352−213−1318 Email: cynthiamirkes@hotmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma Sharma Law Firm PLLC 403 S CHEYENNE AVE STE 1200 TULSA, OK 74103 918−398−0327 Fax: 918−516−0232 Email: ROHITSHARMA@GMAIL.COM LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon Sanchez Law LLC 12915 SW 132ND ST STE 5 MIAMI, FL 33186 305−232−8889 Fax: 305−232−8819 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff CONLAMIC − Oklahoma

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Church Eficaz

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 2 of 7

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Church Piedra Angular

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Mexico Lindo Restaurants TERMINATED: 10/31/2007

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
John Doe suing as: John Doe One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven and Jane Doe One, Two, Three, Four, Five et al

represented by Cynthia Gail Mirkes (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Williams J Sanchez−Calderon (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
T−Mac Construction T−Mac Construction, Inc.

represented by Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 3 of 7

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Chilino's Restaurant Chilino's Restaurant

represented by Rohit C Sharma (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Brad Henry Governor of the State of Oklahoma
Defendant Drew Edmondson Attorney General of the State of Oklahoma

represented by Kevin Lynn McClure Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−521−4274 Fax: 405−521−4518 Email: kevin.mcclure@oag.ok.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
M Daniel Weitman Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−522−4274 Fax: 405−522−0669 Email: Dan.Weitman@oag.ok.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Sandra D Rinehart Office of the Attorney General (OKC−313) LITIGATION SECTION 313 NE 21ST ST OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73105 405−521−3921 Fax: 405−522−0669 Email: fc.docket@oag.state.ok.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
2 COMPLAINT against all defendants by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
3 SUMMONS Issued by Court Clerk as to Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 4 of 7

10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007
10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/25/2007 10/26/2007 10/28/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007

4 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Rohit C Sharma on behalf of Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction, MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
7 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, directing National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma, Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular and Mexico Lindo Restaurants to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within five (5) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non−court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
8 MINUTE ORDER, reassigning case to Judge James H Payne, Judge Gregory K Frizzell no longer assigned to case, changing case number to 07−cv−613−JHP−FHM (hbo, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
9 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Hearing on the pending Motion for Preliminary Injunction ; setting/resetting deadline(s)/hearing(s): ; granting 5 Motion for Hearing, Motion Hearing set for 10/31/2007 at 02:00 PM before Judge James H Payne (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
10 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Plaintiff is directed to file the appropriate 7.1 Corporate Disclosure Statements by 4:30 on 10/29/07 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/25/2007)
11 PRO HAC VICE FEES Paid for attorney(s) Cynthia Mirkes in the amount of $75.00 (Re: 6 MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice MOTION for Attorney(s) Cynthia G. Mirkes to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice ) (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
49 FILING FEES Paid in Full by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 01/28/2008)
12 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Sandra D Rinehart on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Rinehart, Sandra) (Entered: 10/26/2007)
13 MOTION for Attorney(s) William J. Sanchez to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice (paid $75 PHV fee; receipt number 363437) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/28/2007)
14 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by M Daniel Weitman on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
15 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by M Daniel Weitman on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 5 of 7

10/29/2007 10/29/2007 10/29/2007
10/29/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007
10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/30/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007

16 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Kevin Lynn McClure on behalf of Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (McClure, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
17 MOTION for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation Motion to Extended Briefing by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
18 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, CONLAMIC−Oklahoma, Church Eficaz (Iglesia Eficaz), Iglesia Piedra Angular by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) Modified on 10/30/2007 to remove Mexico Lindo Restaurants and John Doe as filers(lml, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/29/2007)
19 MOTION to Dismiss by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (With attachments) (McClure, Kevin) (Entered: 10/29/2007)
20 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to CONLAMIC−Oklahoma and Mexico Lindo by Mexico Lindo Restaurants, CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
21 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Defendant leave to file a Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss not to exceed 35 pages ; granting in part and denying in part 17 Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limitation (Re: 19 MOTION to Dismiss ) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 10/31/2007 THIS ORDER VACATED/SET ASIDE PURSUANT TO 23 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 10/30/2007)
22 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to Cynthia Mirkes and William Sanchez ; granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 13 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
23 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Correcting Minute Order 21 to reflect that Defendants are granted leave to file a RESPONSE to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction not to exceed 35 pages, vacating/setting aside order(s) (Re: 21 Minute Order,,,, Ruling on Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) (Documents Terminated: 21 Minute Order,,,, Ruling on Motion to Exceed Page Limitation, ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
24 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Brad Henry − Served on 10/30/2007. by Church Eficaz; Church Piedra Angular; Mexico Lindo Restaurants; John Doe; National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc.; CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
25 SUMMONS Returned Executed re: Attorney General − Served on 10/26/2007 by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson ; (With attachments) (Weitman, M) (Entered: 10/30/2007)
27 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) ) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
28 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (Re: 2 Complaint ) by Church Eficaz, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant (With attachments) (Sharma, Rohit) Modified on 11/1/2007 to add all filers (sac, Dpty

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 6 of 7

10/31/2007 10/31/2007 10/31/2007
10/31/2007 10/31/2007 11/01/2007
11/06/2007 11/08/2007 11/09/2007 12/06/2007 12/12/2007 12/12/2007 12/14/2007 12/20/2007 12/21/2007

Clk). (Entered: 10/31/2007)
29 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to T−Mac Construction by T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
30 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT as to Chilino's Restaurant by Chilino's Restaurant (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
31 MINUTES of Proceedings − held before Judge James H Payne : Motion Hearing held on 10/31/2007 ; finding as moot 19 Motion to Dismiss (Re: 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated) MOTION for Hearing (emergency and expediated), 19 MOTION to Dismiss ) (Court Reporter: Ken Sidwell) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
32 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Following the hearing held this date, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is due 11/6/07, Responses are due by 4:00 on 11/8/07, Replies are due by 4:00 on 11/9/07 (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
33 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 10/31/2007)
34 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk, directing T−Mac Corporation, Chilino's Restaurant to file a Corporate Disclosure Statement pursuant to FRCvP 7.1 within five (5) days of this order, if they have not already done so. The parties shall use the form entitled Corporate Disclosure Statement available on the Courts website (please do not refile if already filed on non−court form unless directed to do so). If you have already filed your Corporate Disclosure Statement in this case, you are reminded to file a Supplemental Corporate Disclosure Statement within a reasonable time of any change in the information that the statement requires. (s−kjp, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 11/01/2007)
35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson (With attachments) (Weitman, M) (Entered: 11/06/2007)
36 RESPONSE in Opposition to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 11/08/2007)
37 REPLY to Response to Motion (Re: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) by Brad Henry, Drew Edmondson ; (Weitman, M) (Entered: 11/09/2007)
38 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Motion Hearing held on 10/31/2007 before Judge James H Payne (Court Reporter: Ken Sidwell) (Pages: 28) (Re: 31 Minutes of Motion Hearing,,,, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, ) (kns, CrtRptr) (Entered: 12/06/2007)
39 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; dismissing/terminating case (terminates case) ; granting 35 Motion to Dismiss (Documents Terminated: 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/12/2007)
***Civil Case Terminated (see document number 39 ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/13/2007)
40 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne (correcting clerical error in 39 ) (Re: 39 Opinion and Order, Dismissing/Terminating Case, Ruling on Motion to Dismiss, 35 MOTION to Dismiss First Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/14/2007)
41 JUDGMENT by Judge James H Payne, entering judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs (terminates case) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/20/2007)
42 MOTION to Vacate Order/Judgment by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 12/21/2007)

USDC ND/OK Case: 4:07-cv-613 As of: 02/17/2013 07:58 PM CST Page 7 of 7

12/21/2007 12/27/2007 12/27/2007
12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 12/28/2007 01/31/2008 02/01/2008

43 BRIEF in Support of Motion (Re: 42 MOTION to Vacate Order/Judgment ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma ; (Sharma, Rohit) (Entered: 12/21/2007)
44 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against all defendants (Re: 28 Amended Complaint, ) by National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc. (Mirkes, Cynthia) Modified on 1/2/2008 to add watermark pursuant to 45 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/27/2007)
46 Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against Tim Harris, David Prater, Kevin Ward, Stanley Glanz, John Whetsel, Kenneth Kendricks, Howard H Hendrick (Submitted as Doc # 44 , redocketed to add defendants and create proper answer records) (Re: 2 Complaint, 28 Amended Complaint, ) by Church Eficaz, T−Mac Construction, Chilino's Restaurant, Church Piedra Angular, Mexico Lindo Restaurants, John Doe, National Coalition of Latino Clergy and Christian Leaders, Inc., CONLAMIC − Oklahoma (lml, Dpty Clk) Modified on 1/2/2008 THIS DOCUMENT IS STRICKEN/WITHDRAWN PURSUANT TO 47 (crp, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 12/28/2007)
45 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Striking Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint for failure to obtain leave of court pursuant to FRCP 15(a), striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 44 Amended Complaint ) (Documents Terminated: 44 Amended Complaint ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
***Remark: Defendants Tim Harris, David Prater, Kevin Ward, Stanley Glanz, John Whetsel, Kenneth Kendricks, and Howard H Hendrick were deleted, as they were added in error by the Clerk's office (Re: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (lml, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
47 MINUTE ORDER by Court Clerk : Striking docket entry #46 Second Amended Complaint as entered in error, striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (Documents Terminated: 46 Amended Complaint,, ) (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
48 OPINION AND ORDER by Judge James H Payne ; denying 42 Motion to Vacate Order/Judgment (pll, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 12/28/2007)
50 JUDGMENT by Judge James H Payne, entering judgment in favor of Defendants against Plaintiffs (terminates case) (pll, Dpty Clk) Modified on 2/4/2008 to add STRICKEN watermark − see 51 (sac, Dpty Clk). (Entered: 01/31/2008)
51 MINUTE ORDER by Judge James H Payne : Due to clerical error the judgment (50) is hereby stricken as was previously entered on 12/20/07, striking/withdrawing document(s) (Re: 50 Judgment, Entering Judgment ) (Documents Terminated: 50 Judgment, Entering Judgment ) (s−tjc, Dpty Clk) (Entered: 02/01/2008)

 
 ENROLLED HOUSE BILL NO. 1804

By: Terrill, Sullivan, Key, Duncan, Banz, Coody, Cooksey, Dank, Derby, Faught, Hickman, Inman, Johnson (Rob), Kern, Liebmann, Martin (Scott), Martin (Steve), McCullough, McDaniel (Randy), Murphey, Peterson (Ron), Proctor, Sears, Tibbs, Worthen, Johnson (Dennis), Peterson (Pam), Reynolds and McMullen of the House
and
Williamson, Sykes, Corn, Ivester, Adelson, Brogdon, Jolley, Johnson (Mike), Reynolds, Aldridge, Bingman, Brown, Crain, Ford and Wilcoxson of the Senate

An Act relating to illegal immigration; creating the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007; stating legislative purpose; making certain acts unlawful; preserving provision of certain benefits and services; providing penalties; amending 21 O.S. 2001, Section 1550.42, which relates to identification documentation; requiring issuance of identification documents to certain persons; providing exceptions; stating period of validity; providing for renewal under certain circumstances; providing exception for certain document; providing presumption of validity for renewal, duplication or reissuance of driver license; requiring determination of citizenship status for persons charged with certain crime; requiring verification of persons determined to be a foreign national; providing time limitation for verification;

requiring notification to certain entities; providing rebuttable presumption that certain persons are a flight risk; defining terms; requiring participation in certain verification system; prohibiting certain persons from entering into contracts after certain dates; providing exception; establishing certain discriminatory practice; providing exception; limiting certain cause of action; requiring agencies and political subdivisions to verify lawful presence of persons applying for certain benefits; providing for nondiscriminatory treatment; excluding verification under certain circumstances; requiring execution of affidavit; requiring certain applicant to be verified through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement Program; making certain actions subject to certain criminal penalties; authorizing adoption of variations to stated requirements; requiring certain entities to submit an annual compliance report; requiring certain entities to monitor certain program; requiring publication of annual report and certain recommendations; requiring certain entities to submit a report of errors to certain agency; requiring certain withholding of state income tax under certain circumstances; providing for tax liability for noncompliance; preventing certain misinterpretation; directing Attorney General to negotiate terms of certain memorandum; requiring certain signatures; prohibiting certain actions by government entities; authorizing private right of action under certain circumstances; requiring that certain persons be ineligible for postsecondary education benefits or resident tuition; providing exception for persons enrolled during or before certain school year; establishing a Fraudulent Documents Identification Unit within the Department of Public Safety subject to availability of funding; stating purpose; stating duties; providing for employment of sufficient employees; amending Section 1, Chapter 210, O.S.L. 2003 (70 O.S. Supp. 2006, Section 3242), which relates to eligibility for enrollment and resident tuition; requiring graduation from certain school; requiring certain period of residence while attending certain school; requiring satisfaction of certain admission standards; requiring presentation of certain documentation or filing of certain affidavit;

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 2

requiring presentation of certain documents after filing of certain affidavit; requiring maintenance of documentation in certain records; providing qualification for meeting certain criteria; prohibiting certain additional conditions for persons enrolled during or before certain school year; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; and providing an effective date.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1.

NEW LAW

A new section of law not to be

codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

This act shall be known and may be cited as the “Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007”.

SECTION 2.

NEW LAW

A new section of law not to be

codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

The State of Oklahoma finds that illegal immigration is causing economic hardship and lawlessness in this state and that illegal immigration is encouraged when public agencies within this state provide public benefits without verifying immigration status. The State of Oklahoma further finds that when illegal immigrants have been harbored and sheltered in this state and encouraged to reside in this state through the issuance of identification cards that are issued without verifying immigration status, these practices impede and obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration law, undermine the security of our borders, and impermissibly restrict the privileges and immunities of the citizens of Oklahoma. Therefore, the people of the State of Oklahoma declare that it is a compelling public interest of this state to discourage illegal immigration by requiring all agencies within this state to fully cooperate with federal immigration authorities in the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The State of Oklahoma also finds that other measures are necessary to ensure the integrity of various governmental programs and services.

SECTION 3.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 446 of Title 21, unless there is

created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 3

A. It shall be unlawful for any person to transport, move, or attempt to transport in the State of Oklahoma any alien knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law, in furtherance of the illegal presence of the alien in the United States.

B. It shall be unlawful for any person to conceal, harbor, or shelter from detection any alien in any place within the State of Oklahoma, including any building or means of transportation, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the alien has come to, entered, or remained in the United States in violation of law.

C. Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to prohibit or restrict the provision of any state or local public benefit described in 8 U.S.C., Section 1621(b), or regulated public health services provided by a private charity using private funds.

D. Any person violating the provisions of subsections A or B of this section shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a felony punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not less than one (1) year, or by a fine of not less than One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by both such fine and imprisonment.

SECTION 4.

AMENDATORY

amended to read as follows:

21 O.S. 2001, Section 1550.42, is

Section 1550.42 A. The following entities may create, publish or otherwise manufacture an identification document, identification card, or identification certificate and may possess an engraved plate or other such devise device for the printing of such identification; provided, the name of the issuing entity shall be clearly printed upon the face of the identification:

1. Businesses, companies, corporations, service organizations and federal, state and local governmental agencies for employee identification which is designed to identify the bearer as an employee;

2. Businesses, companies, corporations and service organizations for customer identification which is designed to identify the bearer as a customer or member;

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 4

3. Federal, state and local government agencies for purposes authorized or required by law or any legitimate purpose consistent with the duties of such an agency, including, but not limited to, voter identification cards, driver's driver licenses, nondriver's nondriver identification cards, passports, birth certificates and social security cards;
4. Any public school or state or private educational institution, as defined by Sections 1-106, 21-101 or 3102 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, to identify the bearer as an administrator, faculty member, student or employee;
5. Any professional organization or labor union to identify the bearer as a member of the professional organization or labor union; and
6. Businesses, companies or corporations which manufacture medical-alert identification for the wearer thereof.
B. All identification documents as provided for in paragraph 3 or 4 of subsection A of this section shall be issued only to United States citizens, nationals and legal permanent resident aliens.
C. The provisions of subsection B of this section shall not apply when an applicant presents, in person, valid documentary evidence of:
1. A valid, unexpired immigrant or nonimmigrant visa status for admission into the United States;
2. A pending or approved application for asylum in the United States;
3. Admission into the United States in refugee status;
4. A pending or approved application for temporary protected status in the United States;
5. Approved deferred action status; or
6. A pending application for adjustment of status to legal permanent residence status or conditional resident status. Upon approval, the applicant may be issued an identification document provided for in paragraph 3 or 4 of subsection A of this section. Such identification document shall be valid only during

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 5

the period of time of the authorized stay of the applicant in the United States or, if there is no definite end to the period of authorized stay, a period of one (1) year. Any identification document issued pursuant to the provisions of this subsection shall clearly indicate that it is temporary and shall state the date that the identification document expires. Such identification document may be renewed only upon presentation of valid documentary evidence that the status by which the applicant qualified for the identification document has been extended by the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services or other authorized agency of the United States Department of Homeland Security.

D. The provisions of subsection B of this section shall not apply to an identification document described in paragraph 4 of subsection A of this section that is only valid for use on the campus or facility of that educational institution and includes a statement of such restricted validity clearly and conspicuously printed upon the face of the identification document.

E. Any driver license issued to a person who is not a United States citizen, national or legal permanent resident alien for which an application has been made for renewal, duplication or reissuance shall be presumed to have been issued in accordance with the provisions of subsection C of this section; provided that, at the time the application is made, the driver license has not expired, or been cancelled, suspended or revoked. The requirements of subsection C of this section shall apply, however, to a renewal, duplication or reissuance if the Department of Public Safety is notified by a local, state or federal government agency of information in the possession of the agency indicating a reasonable suspicion that the individual seeking such renewal, duplication or reissuance is present in the United States in violation of law. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to United States citizens, nationals or legal permanent resident aliens.

SECTION 5.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 171.2 of Title 22, unless there

is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. When a person charged with a felony or with driving under the influence pursuant to Section 11-902 of Title 47 of the Oklahoma Statutes is confined, for any period, in the jail of the county, any municipality or a jail operated by a regional jail authority, a reasonable effort shall be made to determine the citizenship status of the person so confined.

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 6

B. If the prisoner is a foreign national, the keeper of the jail or other officer shall make a reasonable effort to verify that the prisoner has been lawfully admitted to the United States and, if lawfully admitted, that such lawful status has not expired. If verification of lawful status cannot be made from documents in the possession of the prisoner, verification shall be made within fortyeight (48) hours through a query to the Law Enforcement Support Center of the United States Department of Homeland Security or other office or agency designated for that purpose by the United States Department of Homeland Security. If the lawful immigration status of the prisoner cannot be verified, the keeper of the jail or other officer shall notify the United States Department of Homeland Security.

C. For the purpose of determining the grant of or issuance of bond, it shall be a rebuttable presumption that a person whose citizenship status has been verified pursuant to subsection B of this section to be a foreign national who has not been lawfully admitted to the United States is at risk of flight.

SECTION 6.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1312 of Title 25, unless there

is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

As used in Sections 6 and 7 of this act:

1. “Status Verification System” means an electronic system operated by the federal government, through which an authorized official of an agency of the State of Oklahoma or of a political subdivision therein may make an inquiry, by exercise of authority delegated pursuant to Section 1373 of Title 8 of the United States Code, to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by Section 7 of this act. The Status Verification System shall be deemed to include:

a. the electronic verification of work authorization program of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996, P.L. 104-208, Division C, Section 403(a); 8 U.S.C., Section 1324a, and operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security, known as the Basic Pilot Program,

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 7

b. any equivalent federal program designated by the United States Department of Homeland Security or any other federal agency authorized to verify the work eligibility status of newly hired employees, pursuant to the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), D.L. 99-603,

c. any other independent, third-party system with an equal or higher degree of reliability as the programs, systems, or processes described in this paragraph, or

d. the Social Security Number Verification Service, or such similar online verification process implemented by the United States Social Security Administration;

2. “Public employer” means every department, agency, or instrumentality of the state or a political subdivision of the state;

3. “Subcontractor” means a subcontractor, contract employee, staffing agency, or any contractor regardless of its tier; and

4. “Unauthorized alien” means an alien as defined in Section 1324a(h)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.

SECTION 7.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 1313 of Title 25, unless there

is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. Every public employer shall register with and utilize a Status Verification System as described in subparagraphs a or b of paragraph 1 of Section 6 of this act to verify the federal employment authorization status of all new employees.

B. 1. After July 1, 2008, no public employer shall enter into a contract for the physical performance of services within this state unless the contractor registers and participates in the Status Verification System to verify the work eligibility status of all new employees.

2. After July 1, 2008, no contractor or subcontractor who enters into a contract with a public employer shall enter into such a contract or subcontract in connection with the physical performance of services within this state unless the contractor or

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 8

subcontractor registers and participates in the Status Verification System to verify information of all new employees.

3. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to any contracts entered into prior to the effective date of this section even though such contracts may involve the physical performance of services within this state after July 1, 2008.

C. 1. It shall be a discriminatory practice for an employing entity to discharge an employee working in Oklahoma who is a United States citizen or permanent resident alien while retaining an employee who the employing entity knows, or reasonably should have known, is an unauthorized alien hired after July 1, 2008, and who is working in Oklahoma in a job category that requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and which is performed under similar working conditions, as defined by 29 U.S.C., Section 206(d)(1), as the job category held by the discharged employee.

2. An employing entity which, on the date of the discharge in question, was currently enrolled in and used a Status Verification System to verify the employment eligibility of its employees in Oklahoma hired after July 1, 2008, shall be exempt from liability, investigation, or suit arising from any action under this section.

3. No cause of action for a violation of this subsection shall arise anywhere in Oklahoma law but from the provisions of this subsection.

SECTION 8.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 71 of Title 56, unless there is

created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. Except as provided in subsection C of this section or where exempted by federal law, every agency or a political subdivision of this state shall verify the lawful presence in the United States of any natural person fourteen (14) years of age or older who has applied for state or local public benefits, as defined in 8 U.S.C., Section 1621, or for federal public benefits, as defined in 8 U.S.C., Section 1611, that is administered by an agency or a political subdivision of this state.

B. The provisions of this section shall be enforced without regard to race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 9

C. Verification of lawful presence under the provisions of this section shall not be required:
1. For any purpose for which lawful presence in the United States is not restricted by law, ordinance, or regulation;
2. For assistance for health care items and services that are necessary for the treatment of an emergency medical condition, as defined in 42 U.S.C., Section 1396b(v)(3), of the alien involved and are not related to an organ transplant procedure;
3. For short-term, noncash, in-kind emergency disaster relief;
4. For public health assistance for immunizations with respect to diseases and for testing and treatment of symptoms of communicable diseases whether or not such symptoms are caused by a communicable disease; or
5. For programs, services, or assistance such as soup kitchens, crisis counseling and intervention, and short-term shelter specified by the United States Attorney General, in the sole and unreviewable discretion of the United States Attorney General after consultation with appropriate federal agencies and departments which:
a. deliver in-kind services at the community level, including through public or private nonprofit agencies,
b. do not condition the provision of assistance, the amount of assistance provided, or the cost of assistance provided on the income or resources of the individual recipient, and
c. are necessary for the protection of life or safety.
D. Verification of lawful presence in the United States by the agency or political subdivision required to make such verification shall require that the applicant execute an affidavit under penalty of perjury that:
1. He or she is a United States citizen; or
2. He or she is a qualified alien under the federal Immigration and Nationality Act and is lawfully present in the United States.

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 10

The agency or political subdivision providing the state or local public benefits shall provide notary public services at no cost to the applicant.
E. For any applicant who has executed the affidavit described in paragraph 2 of subsection D of this section, eligibility for benefits shall be verified through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program operated by the United States Department of Homeland Security or an equivalent program designated by the United States Department of Homeland Security. Until such eligibility verification is made, the affidavit may be presumed to be proof of lawful presence for the purposes of this section.
F. Any person who knowingly and willfully makes a false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement of representation in an affidavit executed pursuant to subsection D of this section shall be
subject to criminal penalties applicable in this state for fraudulently obtaining public assistance program benefits. If the affidavit constitutes a false claim of U.S. citizenship under 18 U.S.C., Section 911, a complaint shall be filed by the agency requiring the affidavit with the United States Attorney General for the applicable district based upon the venue in which the affidavit was executed.
G. Agencies or political subdivisions of this state may adopt variations to the requirements of the provisions of this section which demonstrably improve the efficiency or reduce delay in the verification process, or to provide for adjudication of unique individual circumstances where the verification procedures in this section would impose unusual hardship on a legal resident of Oklahoma.
H. It shall be unlawful for any agency or a political subdivision of this state to provide any state, local, or federal benefit, as defined in 8 U.S.C., Section 1621, or 8 U.S.C., Section 1611, in violation of the provisions of this section.
I. Each state agency or department which administers any program of state or local public benefits shall provide an annual report to the Governor, the President Pro Tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives with respect to its compliance with the provisions of this section. Each agency or department shall monitor the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements Program for application verification errors and

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 11

significant delays and shall provide an annual public report on such errors and significant delays and recommendations to ensure that the application of the Systematic Alien Verification of Entitlements Program is not erroneously denying benefits to legal residents of Oklahoma. Errors shall also be reported to the United States Department of Homeland Security by each agency or department.

SECTION 9.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 2385.32 of Title 68, unless

there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. If an individual independent contractor, contracting for the physical performance of services in this state, fails to provide to the contracting entity documentation to verify the independent contractor's employment authorization, pursuant to the prohibition against the use of unauthorized alien labor through contract set forth in 8 U.S.C., Section 1324a(a)(4), the contracting entity shall be required to withhold state income tax at the top marginal income tax rate as provided in Section 2355 of Title 68 of the Oklahoma Statutes as applied to compensation paid to such individual for the performance of such services within this state which exceeds the minimum amount of compensation the contracting entity is required to report as income on United States Internal Revenue Service Form 1099.

B. Any contracting entity who fails to comply with the withholding requirements of this subsection shall be liable for the taxes required to have been withheld unless such contracting entity is exempt from federal withholding with respect to such individual pursuant to a properly filed Internal Revenue Service Form 8233 or its equivalent.

C. Nothing in this section is intended to create, or should be construed as creating, an employer-employee relationship between a contracting entity and an individual independent contractor.

SECTION 10.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 20j of Title 74, unless there is

created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. The Attorney General is authorized and directed to negotiate the terms of a Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Oklahoma and the United States Department of Justice or the United States Department of Homeland Security, as provided by Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code, concerning the

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 12

enforcement of federal immigration and customs laws, detention and removals, and investigations in the State of Oklahoma.

B. The Memorandum of Understanding negotiated pursuant to subsection A of this section shall be signed on behalf of this state by the Attorney General and the Governor or as otherwise required by the appropriate federal agency.

C. No local government, whether acting through its governing body or by an initiative, referendum, or any other process, shall enact any ordinance or policy that limits or prohibits a law enforcement officer, local official, or local government employee from communicating or cooperating with federal officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within this state.

D. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no government entity or official within the State of Oklahoma may prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the United States Department of Homeland Security, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.

E. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict, a public employee from doing any of the following with respect to information regarding the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:

1. Sending such information to, or requesting or receiving such information from, the United States Department of Homeland Security;

2. Maintaining such information; or

3. Exchanging such information with any other federal, state, or local government entity.

F. The provisions of this section shall allow for a private right of action by any natural or legal person lawfully domiciled in this state to file for a writ of mandamus to compel any noncooperating local or state governmental agency to comply with such reporting laws.

SECTION 11.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 3242.2 of Title 70, unless there

is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 13

A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 3242 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes, an individual who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within the state for:

1. Any postsecondary education benefit, including, but not limited to, scholarships or financial aid; or

2. Resident tuition.

B. The provisions of subsection A of this section shall not apply to a student enrolled in a degree program at a postsecondary educational institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education during the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year who received a resident tuition benefit pursuant to Section 3242 of Title 70 of the Oklahoma Statutes at that institution.

SECTION 12.

NEW LAW

A new section of law to be codified

in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 151.2 of Title 74, unless there

is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

Subject to the availability of funding, the Department of Public Safety shall establish a Fraudulent Documents Identification (FDI) Unit for the primary purpose of investigating and apprehending persons or entities that participate in the sale or distribution of fraudulent documents used for identification purposes. The unit shall additionally specialize in fraudulent identification documents created and prepared for persons who are unlawfully residing within the State of Oklahoma. The Department shall employ sufficient employees to investigate and implement an FDI Unit.

SECTION 13.

AMENDATORY

Section 1, Chapter 210, O.S.L.

2003 (70 O.S. Supp. 2006, Section 3242), is amended to read as

follows:

Section 3242. A. The Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education shall may adopt a policy which allows a student to enroll in an institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education and allows a student to be eligible for resident tuition if the student:

1. Graduated from a public or private high school in this state or successfully completed the General Educational Development test in this state; and

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 14

2. Resided in this state with a parent or legal guardian while attending classes at a public or private high school in this state for at least two (2) years prior to:
a. graduation from high school, or
b. successful completion of the General Educational Development test.
B. To be eligible for the provisions of subsection A of this section, an eligible student shall:
1. Satisfy admission standards as determined by the Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education for the appropriate type of institution and have secured admission to, and enrolled in, an institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education; and
2. If the student is without lawful immigration status cannot present to the institution valid documentation of United States nationality or an immigration status permitting study at a postsecondary institution:
a. file an affidavit with the institution stating that the student has filed an provide to the institution a copy of a true and correct application or has a petition pending filed with the Bureau of United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to legalize the student’s immigration status, or
b. file an affidavit with the institution stating that the student will file an application to legalize his or her immigration status at the earliest opportunity the student is eligible to do so. High school counselors shall inform immigrant students that they should apply for legal status as soon as possible to enhance their opportunity for higher education in Oklahoma, but in no case later than:
(1) one (1) year after the date on which the student enrolls for study at the institution, or
(2) if there is no formal process to permit children of parents without lawful immigration status to apply for lawful status without risk of

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 15

deportation, one (1) year after the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services provide such a formal process, and
c. if the student files an affidavit pursuant to subparagraph b of this paragraph, present to the institution a copy of a true and correct application or petition filed with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services no later than:
(1) one (1) year after the date on which the student enrolls for study at the institution, or
(2) if there is no formal process to permit children of parents without lawful immigration status to apply for lawful status without risk of deportation, one (1) year after the date the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services provide such a formal process, which copy shall be maintained in the institution's records for that student.
C. Any student who meets completes the required criteria prescribed in subsections subsection A and B of this section, paragraph 1 of subsection B of this section, and subparagraph a of paragraph 2 of subsection B of this section shall not be disqualified on the basis of the student’s immigration status from any scholarships or financial aid provided by this state.
D. The provisions of this section shall not impose any additional conditions to maintain resident tuition status at a postsecondary educational institution within The Oklahoma State System of Higher Education on a student who was enrolled in a degree program and first received such resident tuition status at that institution during the 2006-2007 school year or any prior year.
SECTION 14. This act shall become effective November 1, 2007.

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 16

Passed the House of Representatives the 1st day of May, 2007. Presiding Officer of the House of Representatives
Passed the Senate the 16th day of April, 2007. Presiding Officer of the Senate

ENR. H. B. NO. 1804

Page 17