PREC EDENTIAL U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U RTO F A P P E ALS F O R T H ET H IRD C IR C U IT

_____________ No. 07-3531

_____________ PED RO L OZAN O; HUMB ERT O H ERNANDE Z ; RO SA LECHUGA; JOHN DOE 1; J OHN DO E 2; J OHN DO E 3, a Minor, by His pare nts; J ANE DO E 1; J ANE DO E 2; J ANE DO E 3; J OHN DO E 4, a Minor by His parents, BRENDA LEE MIELES; CAS A DOMI

NI CANA OF HAZ LETON, I NC.; HAZ LETON HI SPANI C BUSI NESS ASS OCIATI ON; PENNSYLVANIA STATEWIDE LATI NO COALI TI ON; JANE DOE 5; JOHN DOE 7; J OSE LUI S L ECHUGA

v. CI TY OF HAZ LETON, Appellant Ap pe a l f ro m th eUn ite d St ate s D istri c t Co ur t fo r t heMiddleDi stric t of

Pe nn sylva

nia (No. 3:06-c v-01586) D i s tri c tJu d g e : H o n o r a

b l eJ am e s M
. Mun l e y A r gued O ct ober30, 2008Honora ble Eug ene E . Siler, Jr., Senior Judge of the United * States Court of Appeals for the Six th Circuit, sitting by designation. 2 B e f o re : M c K E E , C hi ef

Judge , a n d NYG AARD a n d S I LE R, * C i r cui tJudges ( O pi ni on fi l ed Sept ember 9, 2010) W ito ld J . W a lc z a k , E s q . ( ARG UED ) A m er i can Ci vi l L i ber t i es U ni on of Penns y l vani a 313 A t w ood St r eet Pi t t s bur gh, PA 15213 O m a r J a d w a t, E s q . ( ARG UED ) L ee P. G el ernt , E s q. A m er i can Ci vi l L i ber t i es U ni on Im m ig ra n t R ig h ts’ P rojec t 1 2 5 B ro a d S tre e t 1 8 F loo r th N ew Y or k, N Y 10004- 2400 J enni ferC hang, E s q. L ucas G ut t ent ag, E s q. A m er i can Ci vi l L i ber t i es U ni on Foundat i on 39 D rum m St r eet San Fr anci s co, C A 94111 J acks on C hi n, E s q. Fost erM aer , E s q.3 G hi t a Schw ar z, E s q. Puer t o R i can Legal D efe ns e & E ducat i on Fund 99 H uds on St r eet 14 Fl oor th N ew Y or k, N Y 10013 T hom as B
. Fi ddl er , E s q. W hit e & W i l l i am s 1650 M ar ketSt r eet O ne Li ber t yPl ace , Sui t e 1800 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 E l ena Park, E s q. C ozen & O ’ C onnor 200 Four Fal l s C orpor at e C ent er P. O
. B ox 800, Sui t e 400 W es tC ons hohocken, PA 19428- 0800 I l an R os enber g, E s q. T hom as G
. W i l ki ns on, J r . , E s q. C ozen & O ’ C onnor 1900 M ar ketSt r eet 3 Fl oor rd Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103 Sham ai ne A
. D ani el s , E s q. C om m uni t yJ us t i ce Pr oj ect 118 L ocus tSt r eet H arr i s bur g, PA 17101

C ouns el f orP l ai nt i f f s -Appel l ees4 K ri s W . K o b a c h , E s q . ( ARGUE D) Pr ofes s orof Law U n i v e r s i t y o f

M i s s o u r i ( K a n s a s C i t y) 5100 R ockhi l l R oad K ans as C i t y , M O 64110- 2499 H arr yG
. M ahoney , E s q. C ar l a P. M ar es ca, E s q. A ndr ew B
. A dai r , E s q. D e a se yM a h o n e y , V a len tin i & N o rth 1601 M ar ketSt r eet Sui t e 3400 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19103- 2978 E l i zabe t h S. G al l aw ay , E s q. M ount ai n St at es L egal Foundat i on 2596 Sout h L ew i s W ay L akew ood, C O 80227 M i chae l M
. H ethm on, E s q. Im m ig ra tio n R e f

o rm L a w In stitu te 2 5 M a s s a c h u s e tts A v e n u e , N .W
. Sui t e 330 B W as hi ngt on, D C 20001

Counsel for Defendant-Appe llant Da mon Sc ott 1446 Fair Oaks L ane Florence, SC 29506-57335 Paul J . Orfa

nedes, Esq. J ames F . Peterson, Esq. Judicial Watch, Inc. 5 0 1 Sc h o o l S tre e t, S. W. Washington, DC 20024 Richard A. Samp, Esq. Washington L eg al Founda tion 2 0 0 9 M a s s a c hu s e tt s Av e nu e , N
. W. Washington, DC 20036 Andre w L . Schlafly , Esq. 17 Floor th 521 Fifth Avenue New Y ork, NY 10175

Counsel for Amicus Appellant s Robin S . Conrad, Esq. National Chamber s L itigation Center 1 6 1 5 HStr e e t, N
. W. Washington, DC 20062 Carter G. Philli ps, Esq. Eric A. Shumsky , Esq. Sidle y Au sti n 1 5 0 1 K Str e e t, N
. W. Washington, DC 20005 Bur t M. Rubli n, Esq. Ballard Spahr 1735 Marke t Street 51 Floor st Philadelphia, PA 191036 Diana S. Andsag er, Esq. Mayer B rown 71 South W acker Drive Chicag o, I l 60603 Nanc y Winkelman, Esq. Sc hn a de r H arriso n Se g a l &L e wi s 1600 Marke t Street Suite 3600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 Kenne th J . Pfaehle r, Esq. Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal 1 3 0 1 K Str e e t, N
. W. Suite 600 East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Charles D. Weisselberg , Esq. Berkley L aw School 68 8 Si mon

Hall Berkley , CA 94720 J acob S. Pultman, Esq. Allen &Over

y 1221 Avenueof the Ame rica s New Y ork, NY 10020 J ohn W. W est, Esq. Bredhoff & Kaiser 8 0 5 F if te e nth Str e e t, N
. W. Suite 1000 Washington, DC 200057 Mark D. Mc Pherson, Esq. Morrison &Foe rster 1290 Avenueof the Ame rica s New Y ork, NY 10104

Counsel for Amicus Appellee s

OPI NI ON McKEE, Chief Judge
.

TAB LE OF CONTENTS I
. I N T R O D U C T I O N
. ................................... 8 I I . FAC TUAL

AND PROCEDURAL

BA CKGROUND.
. . . . . . 1 0 A. Haz le ton

and its Ordin a

nc e s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 1. The I lleg al Immigration Relief Act Ordinance
. 14 2. The Rental Reg istration Ordinanc e. . . . . . . . . . 2 1 B
. T h e P l a i nt i f

f s . ............................... 2 2 C
. P r o c e d

ur a lH i s t o r

y . ........................... 2 4 I I I
. JU RI SD I CT I O NA

N D ST A N D A RD O F REV IE W.
. . . . . . . 2 6 IV. SEV ERABIL I TY AND STANDI NG.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 6 A. Gen eral Principles of Standing..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 0 B. C o n s t i tut i o n al S t an d i n g. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 1. Th e Em

plo y me nt P ro vis ion s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 2. Private Cause of

Action.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 1 3
. H o u s i n gP r o v i s i o n s . ..................... 4 3 a. L andlord Plaintiffs..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 b. Tena nt P laintif

fs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 C
. P r u d e nt i a lS t an d i n g . .......................... 5 68 V. ANONYMI TY AND CONFIDENTIALI TY.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2 V I
. D I S C U S S I ON
. .................................... 6 6 A. Fe de ral I

mmigration L aw. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 1. Th e Immi gra

tio n a nd Natio nality

Ac t. . . . . . . . 6 7 2. Th e Immi gra

tio n Re fo rm

and Control A c t. . . . 7 3 3. The I lleg al Immigration Reform and Immigra nt R e s p o n s ib i l i ty

A c t . .................. 7 8 B
. S t at ean d

L o c a lImm i gr at i o nL aw s .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 C
. P r e - e mp t i o n. ................................ 8 4 1. Em p loy me nt P ro vis ion s. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 4 a. Presumption Against P re- emption.
. . . 9 4 b. Expr ess Pre-emption.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 7 c. Conf lict Pre-emption.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 2
. H o u s i n gP r o v i s i o n s . .................... 132 V I I
. C ON C LU S I O N
. ................................. 146 V I I I
. AP P EN D IX
. ................................... 147 A. TheI lleg al Immigration Relief Act Ordinance
. . . . . 147 B. Rental Reg istration Ordinanc e. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

I. IN TR OD UC TIO N “Si nce the l at e 19th centur y , t he U ni t ed St at es has
r es t r i ct ed i m m i gr at i on int o t hi s countr y . . . . B utdes pi t e the
ex i s t ence of t hes e l egal r es t r i ct i ons , a s ubs t ant i al num berof per s ons have s ucce eded i n unl aw ful l yent er i ng t he U ni t ed9 St at es , and now l i ve w i t hi n [the] var i ous St at es . ” P l yl erv. D oe , 457 U
. S. 202, 205 ( 1982)
. T he di s put e w e ar e now cal l ed upon t o addr es s i s o n e o f an i ncr eas i ng num berof ca s es t hathave
ar i s en fr om act i ons t hat s t at e and l ocal governm ent s have t aken b e c a u s e o f

ille g a l im m ig ra tio n . T he C i t yof H azl et on, Penns y l vani a ( “H azl et on” ort he “C i t y ”) i s app ea li ng a perm anenti nj unct i on t hatthe di s t r i ct
cour tent er ed pr ohi bi t i ng H az le t on’ s enfor cementof tw o l ocal
or di nance s t hat at t empt t o r egul at e empl oy m entof, and pr ovi s i on of r ent al hous i ng t o, cert ai n al i ens . S ever al i ndi vi dual s and or gani zat i ons s ued t o enj oi n enfor cement of the
or di nance s ar gui ng t hatt hey v iol at e the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, as w el l as fede r al a n d sta t e s t atut es . T he di s t r i ct
co u rtagr eed a nd enj oi ned H azl et on fr om enfor ci ng t he
o rd in a n c e s in th e ire n tir e ty. W e now hol d t hat t he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n r eac hi ng t he10 m er i t s of t he chal l enge t o t he pri vat e caus e of a ct i on pr ovi s i on beca us e no pl ai nt i ff ha s s t andi n g to chal l enge thatpr ovi s i on. A ccor di ngl y , t hat por t i on of t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s or der w il l be
vaca t ed. H ow ever , al t h o u g h ourr eas oni ng di ffe r s s om ew hat f ro m th e a n a ly sis u se d b y th e d istric t co u rt, w e c o n c lu d e th a t it
c o r r e c t l ye n

j o i n e d t h e r e s to f

t h e c h a l l e n g e d o r d i n a n c e s . We
w i l l t her efor e af

fi r m t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or deri n al l ot her
res pects . I I . F ACT UAL AND P ROCE DURAL BA CKGROUND A . H azl et on and i t s O rdi nances T h e C ityo f

H a z le to n is lo c a ted in L u z e rn e C o u n tyin
n o rt h e a s te rn P e n n s y lv a n ia
. Lozano v
. C i t y of H az l et on , 49 6 F. S u p p . 2 d 4 7 7 , 4 8 4 ( M
. D. Pa
. 2 0 0 7 )
. Un d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a l a w, H azl et on i s cl as s i fi ed as a C i t yof the T hi r d C l as s and oper at es
u n d e r a n “ O p tio n a l P la n B ” f o rm o f g o v e r n m e n t. I d. Its
e x e c u tiv e is a m a y o r, a n d its le g is la tu re is a c ity c o u n c il. I d.Hazleton ref ers to per sons who arenot lawfully present 1 within the United States as “illeg al aliens.”Plaintiffs refer to them as “undocumented immigrants.” We re cognize that there a re signific ant criticisms of each te rm. See, e .g. , Be th Lyon, W hen More “Sec urity” Equals L ess W orkplaceSafety: Re considering U. S. Lawstha t D isa dvan tageUn au tho rize d W or k e rs , 6 U
. P a . J. L ab. &Empl. L . 571, 576 (2004) ( “Scholarly and popular

concerns a bo ut t hephra se‘i lle g a l a lien’ a bo un d, po intingout th at th ephra se is racially loaded, a mbiguous, imprec ise, and pe jorative.” ); Ma rtine z v . R e gentsof t heUn iv . o f Ca l. , 83 Cal. Rptr. 3d 518, 522 n. 2 ( Ca l. C t. A

pp . 2 00 8) (“ [T]hete rm

‘i lle g a l a lien’ [is] le ss ambiguous [than the ter

m ‘undocumente d immigra nt.’]”), rev. granted, 198 P.3d 1 (Cal. 2008). (continued...) 11 H a z l e t o n ' s p o p u la tio n w a s o n ly 2 3 ,0 0 0 in 2 0 0 0
. I d. B etw een 2000 a nd t he t i m e of tr i al , how ever , it s popul at i on i n c re a s e d to b e tw e e n 3 0 ,0 0 0 a n d 3 3 ,0 0 0
. Id
. M uch of this gr ow t h w as due t o an i nfl u x o f L at i no fami l i es w ho m i gr at ed f ro m N e w Y o rk a n d N e w Je rse yto P e n n sy lv a n ia in th e e a rly 2 0 0 0 s . Id. T hes e new comer s i ncl uded U ni t ed St at es ci t i zens and l aw ful per m anentr es i dent s , as w ell as per s ons l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus , w ho ar e oft en r efe r r ed t o as

“ u n d o c u m e n te d im m ig ra n ts ” o r “ ille g a l a lie n s .” I d. 1(...continued) 1 Fe deral immi gration law de fines an “ alien” a s “any person not a citizen or national of the United States.” 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (3). “ Immigra

nt” is defined a s “every

alien except an alien who is within [ cer

tain specifie d] classes of nonimmigra nt aliens,” and g enerally

ref ers only to lawful per

manent re sidents. 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a) (15). Congress ha s pref erred the ter

m “alien”to describe those persons who la ck lawf ul immi gration status, see, e .g. , 8 U.S.C. §§ 1182, 1227, 1228. W e will use the word “alien”rathe r tha n “ imm igra

nt”be c a us e“ a lien”is m orepre c ise , a nd pre c isi on is important to discussions i n this area . When discussing issues of employ ment, we will use the of

ficial ter m: “unauthorized alien.”8 U.S.C. § 1324a. However, whe n discussing issues of immigration status, we will use either : “aliens not lawf ully present” or “ aliens lackinglawful immigration status,” rather than “ illegal aliens.” 12 H azle to n’s m ay or, as w el l as ot her l ocal offi ci al s,
su b se q u e n tlyc o n c lu d e d th a t alie n s la c k in g law f u l s tatu s w e re to b la m e f o r c e rt a in s o c ia l p ro b le m s in th e C ity, s ee J
. A
. 1672- 85,
a n d th a t th e f

e d e ra l g o v e r n m e n t c o u ld n o t b e re lied u p o n to pr events uch al i ens fr om m ovi ng i nt o t he C i t y , ort o r emove the m , s ee Lozano, 4 9 6 F
. S u p p . 2 d a t5 2 2 n . 4 4
. A c c o r d i n g l y, C i t yoffi ci al s deci ded t o t ake i ndepende ntact i on t o r egul at e the lo c a l e f f e c ts o f u n la w f u l im m ig ra tio n . See J
. A
. 1385, 1486- 87.On July 13, 2006, Hazleton enac ted Ordina nce 2006- 10, 2 thefirs t vers ion

of theI IRA O. On

Augus t 15 , 2 00 6, theCity enac ted Ordina

nce 2006- 13, the RO. On September 21, 2006, Hazleton enac ted Ordina

nce 2006- 18, a re vised version of the I IRAO, which replace d Ordinanc e 2006-10 in its entirety . On Dec ember

28, 2006, Hazleton enac ted Ordina nce 2006- 40, which ame nd e d th eI IRA O b y

a ddingan “ imp le me ntatio n a nd proc e ss” section. F inally , duringtrial, the City enac ted Ordina

nce 2007- 6, which ag ain amende d the IIRAO to provide that complaints base d, in full or in part, on national orig in, ethnicity , or ra ce, w ould be considere d invalid. The full-text of these ordinanc es is attache d as anAp p e n d ix. 13 B egi nni ng on J ul y13, 2006, H azl et on’ s C i t yC ounci l began enacti ng a ser i es of o rd inanc es desi gn ed to add res s these
c o n c e rn s . Lozano , 4 9 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 8 4
. T hi s l i t i gat i on conce r ns t w o of thos e ordi nance s : t he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R el i ef A ct O r di nance ( “I I R A O ”), w hi ch
cons i s t s of O r di nance 2006- 18, as amended byO r di nance 2006- 40 and O r di nance 2007- 6; and t he R en tal R egi s t r at i on O r di n ance ( “R O ”) , w hi ch cons i s t s of O r di nance 2006- 13. 2 T hes e or di nances att empt t o r egul at e the empl oy m entof unauthor i zed al i ens , and t he pr ovi s i on of r ent al hous i ng t o al i ensIt is imp or tant t o n otethat th epa

rtie s h otly c onte st 3 whether aliens in Hazleton ac tually cause d any

of these pur

ported prob le ms a

nd wh e ther H azle ton

of fi c ia ls h a d a

ny valid re a so n to th i nk th ey d i d
. T h e d i s tri ctco urtd i d n o tm ak e any

fa ctu al fi n d i n gs about the ca

use of a ny social or f

iscal problems Hazleton may be fac ing, a nd our discussion should not be interpre ted as supporting either side of

that debate
. 14 l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus , w i t hi n H azl et on. 1. T he I l l egal I m m i grat i on R el i ef A ct O rdi nance T he I I R A O begi ns w it h a s t at ement of fi ndi ngs and a declar at i on of p urpose, w hich ass ert s: [ t]h a t u n law f

u l em p lo ym e n t, th e h a rb o rin g o f ill e g a l alie n s in d w e lli n g u n its i n t he C i t yof H azl et on, and cr i m e comm i t t ed by i l l egal al i ens har m t he hea l t h, s afe t yand w el far e of aut hor i zed U S w or ker s and l egal r es i dent s i n t he C i t yof H azl et on. I l l egal i m m i gr at i on l eads t o hi ghercr i m e r at es, subj ect s our hos pi t al s t o fi s cal har ds hi p and l egal r es i dent s t o s ubs t andar d qual i t yof ca r e, contr i buted to otherbur dens on publ i c s er vi ces , i ncr eas i ng t hei rcos tand d im in is h in g th e ir a v a ilab ili tyto leg a l re sid e n ts, a n d d im in ish e s o u r o v e ra ll qual i t yof l i fe. I I RA O § 2 C. I n r e s p o n s e t o t h e s e c o n c e r n s , t h e I I RA O:

3
s e e k s t o s e c u r e t o t h o s e l a w f u l l y p r e s e n ti n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h i s C i t y, w hether or not t hey ar e ci t i zens of the U ni t ed St at es , t he r i ghtt o l i ve i n peac e free fr om t he thr eat[of ] cr i m e, t o en

j oyt he p ub l i c ser vices provided b yt his ci t yw i t houtbeing b u rdened byt he cos tof pr ovi di ng goods , s uppor tand s er vi ces t o al i ens unl aw ful l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed S t at es , and t o be fr ee of t he debi l i t at i ng eff

ect s on thei reconomi c and s oci al w el l bei ng i m pos ed byt he i nfl ux of i l l egal al i ens t o t he ful l es text entt hatt hes e goal s can be achi eved cons i s t entw i t h t he C ons t i tuti o n an d L aw s of the U ni t ed St at es and the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a.The IIRAO define s “business entity” broadly to mean 4 “any person or group of persons perf

ormingor eng ag ing in a

ny a c tiv ity, e nterp ri se , p ro fe ssi on , o r o c c up atio n f or g a in, be ne fi t, advantag e, or livelihood, whe ther for profit or not for

profit.” I IRAO § 3A. The term enc ompasses (but is not limi ted to) “se lfemployed individuals, partner ships, corporations, contractor s, and su bc ontr a c tor s. ”I IRA O § 3A (1 ). It in c lud e s “ any bu sin e ss enti ty that possesses a business permit, any business entity

that is ex empt by law f ro m ob ta ini ngsu c h a

bu sin e ss p e rm it, and

any bu sin e ss entity that is operatingunlawfully without such a business per mit.” I IRAO § 3A(2)
. 15 I I RA O § 2 F. Sect i on 4 of t he II R A O as s er t s t hat i t i s unl aw ful “forany b u sin e ss e n tity ” to “ re c ru it, h ire f o r e m p lo ym e n t, or c o n tin u e to
e m p l o y” or“perm i t , di s pat ch, ori ns t ructanyper s on” w ho i s an

“ u n l a wf u l wo r k e r ” t o p e r f

o r m w o r k wi t h i n Ha z l e t o n . I I RA O 4 § 4A
. U ndert he II R A O , an “unl aw ful w or ker ” i s defi ned as : “a p e rso n w h o d o e s n o t h a v e th e le g a l rig h t o r a u th o riz a tio n to
w or k due t o an i m pedi m enti n any pr ovi s i on of fede r al , s t at e or l ocal l aw , i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o a mi nor d i s qual i fi ed by
n o n a g e , o r a n u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n a s d e f in e d b y [ 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a(h )(3)]. ” IIR A O § 3 E
. S e c tio n 4 A req u ir es “ [e ]ve ry bus i ne s s e n t i t y t h a t a p p l i e s f o r a b u s i n e s s p e r mi t ” t o “ s i gn an8 U.S.C. §1373(c) states: “ The Immigration and 5 (continued...) 16 aff i davi t. . . aff

i r m i ng t hatt heydo notknow ing lyut i l i ze the
s e r v i c e s o rh i r e a n y p e r s o n wh o i s a n u n l a wf u l wo r k e r . ” I I RA O § 4 A
. Secti on 4 al s o pr ovi des forpubl i c moni t or i ng, p ro se c u tio n , an d sa n c tio n s. A n yC ity re sid e n t m a ysu b m it a compl ai ntt o H azl et on’ s C ode E nfor cementO ffi ce a l l egi ng t hat a l ocal bus i nes s ent i t yi s vi ol at i ng t he s ect i on’ s pr ohi bi ti o n on
u ti li zing the s erv ices o f a n u n law f u l w o rke r. IIR A O § 4 B (1). U pon r ece i ptof s uch compl ai nt , the C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce
r eques t s i dent i t yi nfor m at i on aboutt he al l eged unl aw ful w or ker fr om t he empl oy i ng bus i nes s , and thatbus i nes s m us t pr ovi de the i nfor m at i on w i t hi n t hr ee bus i nes s day s , orH azl e t o n wi l l s u s p e nd its b u sin e ss lice n se . IIR A O § 4 B (3 ). If th e w o rk e r is a lleg e d to b e a n u n a u th o riz e d a lien , th e C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice su b m its anyi dent i t yi nfor m at i on r ece i ved fro m t he bus i nes s t o t he fede r al governm ent , pur s uantt o 8 U
. S. C
. § 1373, for
v e ri f ic a tio n o f

“ th e im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s o f s u c h p e rs o n (s ).” I

d. 5(...continued) 5 Natura lizatio n Se rv ic esh a ll re sp on d to an in qu ir y by a F e de ral, State , o r l oc a l g ov e rnme nt ag e nc y , s e e kin gto v e ri fy or a sc e rt a in the citizenship or immi gration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the ag ency for a ny purpose a

uthorized by

law, by providingthe re quested ve rification or status information.” Th is thre ebu sin e ss d ay

pe ri od is t oll e d if

thebu sin e ss 6 e nti ty a c qu ir e s f

ur ther i nf or matio n a bo ut t hewo rke r a

nd re qu e sts a seconda ry verific ation from the f

ederal g overnme nt of the worker’s authorization, or if the business entity tries to terminate theworke r and that w or ke r c halle ng e s th ete rm inatio n in Pe nn sylva

nia state c ourt . IIRA O § 7C. 17 I f t he C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce confi r m s t hatt he w or ker l acks au t ho ri zat i on t o w ork i n the U nit ed S t at es, th e bu si ness
m u st te rm in a te th a t p e rso n w ith in th re e b u sin e ss d a y s o r th e C ity
w i l l s us pend i t s bus i nes s l i cens e. I I R A O § 4B ( 4)
. Safe ha rbor 6 fro m this sa n cti o n is p rov ided to b u sine sses that v erifythe w o rk aut h o ri za t i on of i t s w or ker s t hr ough us e of the “Basi c Pi l ot P r o g r a m” ( wh i c h h a s s i n c e b e e n n a me d “ E
- Ve r i f y ” )
. I I RA O § 4 B (5). E
- V er i fyi s a fe der al pr ogr am for ve r i fy i ng w ork author i zat i on w hi ch C ongr es s has author i zed fo rus e on a tr i al b a s is
. A b u s i n e s s wh o s e l i c e n s e i s s u s p e n d e d u n d e rt h e I I RA OCity ag encie s and business that contra ct with the City for 7 amounts greater than $10,000 a re also require d to enroll in EVerify . I IRAO § 4C-D. 18 re g a in s its lic e n se o n e b u sin e ss d a ya f ter it su b m its a n a f

f id a v it
a f f i r mi n g t h a ti th a s t e r mi n a t e d t h e u n l a wf u l wo r k e r . I I RA O § 4 B ( 6)
. I f a bus i nes s i s found t o have empl oy ed t w o orm o re
u n a u th o riz e d a lien s a t o n e tim e , itm u st a lso c o n f ir m its
e n r o l l me n ti n E
- Ve r i f

yi n o r d e r t o r e c o v e ri t s l i c e n s e . I I RA O 7 § 4B ( 6) ( b)
. If a b u s i nes s ent i t yvi ol at es t he I I R A O a s econd tim e , H a z leto n su s p e n d s its lic e n se f o r a m in im u m o f

tw e n ty d a y s an d re p o rts the v io latio n , w h e th e r or n o t e v e n tu a lly
co rrected , to the fe d era l go v ern m en t. IIR A O § 4 B (7). T he I I R A O fur t hercr eat es a pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on agai ns tbus i nes s es t hatempl oyunl aw ful w or ker s . Sect i on 4E of t he II R A O m akes i t “an un fai r bu si ness p ract i ce” for a bu si ness ent i t yt o di s char ge “a n em p loy ee w ho i s notan unl aw ful
w o r k e r,” if

, o n th e d a te o f

th e d isc h a rg e , “th e b u sin e ss e n tity
w as notpar t i ci pat i ng i n [E-V er i fy ] and t he bus i nes s ent i t yw as empl oy i ng an unl aw ful w or ker
. ” I I R A O § 4E ( 1)
. A n empl oy eeEv e n a n e mpl oye ewh o is prop e rly te rm inate d f

or c a us e 8 (or without ca

use in the ca se of a

n employee at will) has a ca use of a c tio n und e r t

his prov isi on . T heordin anc eus e s “ los t”wag e s a s a measureof “da

mag es.” IIRAO § 4E(2). Th eI IRA O d e fine s a

n “ ill e g a l a lien”a s “ an alien who is 9 not lawfully

present in the United States, acc ordingto the terms of United States Code Title 8, section 1101 et se q.” IIRAO § 3D. 19 d isc h a rg e d u n d e r th e se c o n d iti o n s m a ysu e th e b u sin e ss e n tity undert he I I R A O fort r ebl e ac tual damages , as w el l as
rea so n ab le att o rne y ’s fe es a n d co sts. IIR A O § 4 E (2). 8 T he I I R A O al s o addres s es t he “ha rbor i ng” of pe r s ons l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus . Sect i on 5 m akes i t“unl aw ful foranyper s on or bus i nes s ent i t y t hat ow ns a dw el l i ng uni ti n t he C i t yt o harboran i l l egal al i en i n t he dw el l i ng u n i t , know i ng or i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa cttha tan al i en has come t o,
e n te re d , o r r e m a in s in th e U n ite d S ta te s in v i o la tio n o f la w .” 9 I I R A O § 5A
. “H arb o r i ng” i s br oadl ydefi ned. T he or di nance
s t at es : “t o l et , l eas e, orr enta dw el l i ng uni t to an il le gal al i en .

. . sh all b e d ee m ed to c o n sti tute h arb o ri n g . ” IIR A O § 5 A (1). A ddi t i onal l y , Sect i on 7 of t he II R A O m akes l egal i m m i gr at i on
s t atus a con d it ion pr ece dentt o ent er i ng i nt o a val i d l eas e. I I R A O § 7B
. A l l l eas es ent er ed i nt o byper s ons l acki ng l aw ful
s ta tu s a re d e e m e d b re a c h e d
. I d.Th is f ivebu sin e ss d ay

pe ri od is t oll e d if

theprop e rt

y 10 owne r a c qu ir e s f

ur ther inf or matio n a bo ut t hete na nt a nd re qu e sts a seconda ry verific ation from the f

ederal g overnme nt of the tena nt’s immigration status, or if the proper ty owner tries to evict the tena

nt (continued...) 20 T he mechani s m s for enfor ci ng t he housi ng pr ovi s i ons of t he I I R A O ar e s i m i l ar t o t hos e s etfor t h above f orenfor ci ng t he empl oym entpr ovi s i ons . T hus , anyC i ty resi dentm ayfi l e a
com p lai ntw i t h H azl et on’ s C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce a l l egi ng t hat a pr oper t y ow ner i s i l l egal l y “harbor i ng” a t enantw ho i s an

“ ill e g a l alie n .” II R A O § 5 B (1 ). O n c e su c h a c o m p la in t is
r ece i ved, t he C ode E nfor cementO ffi ce mayr eques ti dent i fy i ng inf o rm ati o n ab o u t th e n am ed tena n t fro m the p rop ertyo w n er,
a n d the propert yow ner m ustprovide t hat i nfo rm at i on w i t h in th re e d a y s. IIR A O § 5 A (3 ). T h e C ity th e n v e rif ies th e leg a lity
o f th e ten a n t’s im m ig ra tio n sta tu s w ith th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, p u rs u a n t to 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 7 3 (c ). I IR A O § 5 B (3 ). I f t he fe der al governm entconfi r m s t hatt he t enantl acks l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus , t he I I R A O gi ves t he pr oper t yow ner fi ve bus i nes s day s t o evi ctt hatt enant . I I R A O § 5 B (4). I f the
ow ner fai l s t o d o so, t he C i t ysuspend s the o w ner’ s r ental l i cense
a n d b a rs th e o w n e r f

ro m c o llec tin g a n yre n t f o r th e a p p lica b le dw el l i ng uni t . I I R A O § 5B ( 4)
- (5). Thes e s anct i ons end one 10(...continued) 10 and that tena

nt challeng es the e viction in Pennsylvania state c ourt. I IRAO § 7D. 21 bus i nes s day aft er t he ow ners ubm i t s an af fi davi taff

i r m i ng t hat
s / he has corr ect ed the vi ol at i on. I I R A O § 5B ( 6)
. A ny
s ubs equentvi ol at i on s ubj ect s t he ow ner t o a fi ne of $250. 00 per d a yp e r “ a d u lt i lleg a l a lien ” h a rb o re d in a d w e lli n g u n it, a s w e ll
as su sp en sion o f h er/his re n tal li ce n se. IIR A O § § 5 A (2), 5B (8). 2. T he R ent al R egi s t rat i on O rdi nance T he R O oper at es i n conj unct i on w i t h t he ant i
- harbor i ng p ro v isio n s o f th e IIR A O
. S e c tio n 7 o f th e R O re q u ire s th a t any pr os pect i ve occupant of re nt al hous i ng overt he age of ei ght een
a p p l yf o ra n d r e c e i v e a n o c c u p a n c yp e r mi t . RO § § 1 m, 7 b
. To
r ece i ve thatper m i t , t he pr os pec ti v e occ upantm us tpaya t endol lar f ee and m us ts ubm i tcert ai n document s , i ncl udi ng

“ [ p ]ro p e r id e n tific a tio n sh o w in g p ro o f o f leg a l citiz e n sh ip
a n d / o rr e s i d e n c y ” t o Ha z l e t o n ’ s Co d e En f o r c e me n t Of

f i c e . RO § 7b. H azl et on l andl or ds ar e re qui r ed t o i nfor m al l pr os pect i ve occupa nt s of t hi s r equi r ement , and they are pr ohi bi t ed fr om
a l l o w i n g a n yo n e o v e r t h e a g e o f e i g h t e e n t o r e n to ro c c u p y a
re n ta l u n it, u n le s s th a t p e rs o n h a s a p e rm it. Id
. Sect i on 10 of t he R O pr ovi des t hat a l andl or d fo undEleven plaintiffs filed the operative complaint. The 11 district court dismissed three of them for lac k of standing , and that portion of the district cour t’s decision is not beingappealed. Of thee ight p la intif

fs thedis tric t c ourt

fo un d to havesta

nding , o nly six pre ss t he ir c a se s o n a

pp e a l. 22 gui l t yof r ent i ng t o s om eone w i t houta perm i tm us tpayan i ni t i al fi ne of $1000 per unauthor i zed occupa nt , and an a ddi t i onal fi ne
o f $ 1 0 0 p e r d a y p e r u n a u th o riz e d o c c u p a n t u n til th e v io latio n is
corr ect ed. R O § 10b. A n author i zed oc cupantof r ent al hous i ng
w ho i s found gui l t y of per m i t t i ng s om eone w i t ho u t a r ent al p e rm it to liv e in h e r/ h is a p a rt m e n t m u s t p a yth e s a m e f in e . I d. B . T h e P laintiff

s T he fol l ow i ng s i x pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t hat t heyhave s t andi ng t o br i ng t hi s s ui t : Pedr o L ozano, J ohn D oe 1, J ohn D oe 3, J ohn D oe 7 , Jane D oe 5 , and t he H azl et on H i spanic B usi ness A s s oci at i on ( “Pl ai nt i ffs ”)
. T hes e P l ai nt i ffs i ncl ude H azl et on 11 bus i nes s ent i t i es , l andl or ds , and t enant s , as w el l as an
or gani zat i on w hos e m ember s i ncl ude H azl et on bus i nes s ent i t i es and l an d lord s . W e br i efl ydes cr i be thes e Pl ai nt i ffs , and the bas i c fa ct s under l y i ng eac h Pl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m t o s t andi ng. Pedr o L ozano i s a l aw ful per m anentr es i dentw ho i m m i gr a t e d t o t he U ni t ed St at es fr om C ol om bi a i n J anuary2002. Lozano , 4 9 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 8 5 -8 6 . H e o w n s a d u p lex in23 H a z le to n a n d re n ts o u t h a lf o f it to h e lp p a yh is m o rt g a g e . I d. at 488. H e hi r es contr act or s t o per for m r epai r s on hi s pr oper t yas neede d. I

d. at489. J o h n D o e 1 w a s b o rn in M e x ico , an d h a d liv e d in H a z le to n f

o r s ix y e a rs a t th e tim e o f tr ia l. I d. a t 4 8 6 . H e is
uns ur e of hi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus , butbel i eves t hathe could be
re m o v e d f

ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s . I d. H e i s s i m i l ar l yuns ur e of h is w o rk a u th o ri z a tio n . I d. Jo h n D o e 1 ' s la n d lo rd e v icte d h im beca us e of th e r i s k of bei ng fi ned pur s uantt o t he
a f o re m e n tio n e d p ro v is io n s o f th e II R A O a n d th e R O
. I d. at497. J ohn D oe 3 h a d l i v e d i n Haz l e t o n f o r f o u r y e a r s a tt he tim e o f tr ia l. I d. at486. H e under s t ands hi s i m m i gr at i on s t atus to b e “ il l e g a l,” a n d h e re n ts a n a p a rt m e n t w ith in H a z le to n . I d.
a t 4 9 7
. J ohn D oe 7 and J ane D oe 5 w er e born i n C ol um bi a and had l i ved i n H azl et on form or e t h an fi ve y ear s att he t i m e of tr ia l. I d. at486. T h ey ren ta hous e i n H azl et on, butfea r
ev ict ion an d b eing fo rce d to leav e H az let o n if the o rdin an ce s are
e n f o rc e d
. Id
. at497. T he H azl et on H i s pani c B us i nes s A s s oci at i on ( “H H B A ”) i s an or gani zat i on of busi n ess o w ner s fr om t he H azl et on ar ea24 t hatexi s t s t o “pr om ot e the i nt er es tof [i t s ] bus i nes s m ember s and t o pr oj ectt he i m age of

t he H i s pani c bus i nes s comm uni t y . ” I d.
a t 4 9 2 (in ter n a l q u o tatio n m a rk s o m itt e d ). H H B A ’s p re sid e n t, R udol fo Esp i nal , ow ns t hr ee r ent al pr oper t i es i n H azl et on and h i r e s c o n t r a c t o r s t o p e r f o r m r e p a i r s o n t h o s e p r o p e r t i e s as
n e e d e d
. I

d. at492- 93. C . P roce dural H i s t ory A s not ed above , num er ous pl ai nt i ffs fi l ed thi s act i on for i nj un cti ve r el i ef ba s ed upon cha l l enges t o t he val i di t yof the II R A O a n d th e R O
. Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at 485. T he d istri ct co u rt g ran ted th ese p lai n ti ff s’ m o ti o n fo r a tem p o rary
r es t r ai ni ng or der , and the part ies agr eed t o ext end thator der
un t i l t he case cou l d be res olved on i ts m e rit s. I d. T hese
or di nance s have ne verbeen e nfor ced, and the cha l l enges
a ss e rte d a re f

a c ial. T he amended compl ai n tal l eges t hatt he or di nance s vi ol at e t he Supr emacy C l aus e, t he D ue Pr oces s C l aus e, and the Eq u a l Pr o t e c t i o n Cl a u s e o f t h e Uni t e d St a t e s Con s t i tu t i on; 42 U
. S. C
. § 1981; t he fede r al Fai r H ous i ng A ct , 42 U
. S. C
. §§ 3601- 31; pl ai nt i ffs ' pr i vacyr i ght s ; Penns y l vani a’ s H om e R ul e C har t er L aw , 5 3 P a. C o n s. S tat. § § 2 9 6 1 -67 ; Pe n n sy lvan ia’s L an d lordTh edis tric t c ourt dis mis se d th eEq

ual Prote c tio n, F a ir 12 HousingAct, priva cy , and Pennsylvania L andlord a nd Tena nt Act claims, and those por

tions of its order havealso not been a ppeale d. 25 and T enant A ct , 68 Pa. C ons . St at . §§ 250. 101- 50. 602; and the lim its o f H a z le to n ’s p o lic e p o w e rs . I d. A tt he conc l us i on of a ni ne- daybench tri al, the di s t r i ct
court i ssu ed a tho rou g h o p inion an d o rde r pe rm an ent l yenj oi ni ng t he C i t y from enfor ci ng t he or di nance s . T he courtconcl uded t hatei ghtof t he el even pl ai nt i ffs had st andi ng t o chal l enge the I I R A O and the R O , and thati tw as appr opr i at e fort he J ohn and Jan e D oe P l ai nti ffs t o p roceed an on ym ou sl y . T he co urtheld t hatt he IIRA O and the R O vi ol at e the Supr emacyand D ue Pr oces s C l aus es of t he U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on, as w el l as 42 U
. S. C
. § 1981. T h e courtal s o hel d t hatH azl et on, as a C i t yof t h e Th i r d Cl a s s , l a c k e d a u t h o r i t yu n d e rP e n n s y l v a n i a ’ s Ho me R ul e C har t er L aw t o cr eat e t he II R A O ’ s pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on, and t hat i texcee ded i t s poli ce po w ers i n e nacti ng t hese ordi nan ces. 12 T hi s appea l fol l ow ed. H azl et on ar g u es t hatPl ai nt i ffs l ack s t and ing, and thatt he di s t r i ctcour tabus ed i t s di s cr et i on bot h i n per m i t t i n g the J ohn and J ane D oe Pl ai nt i ffs t o pr ocee d anonym ous l yand i n i s s ui ng a conf i dent i al i t yor derpr ohi bi t i ng26 H a z leto n f

ro m d isc lo sin g th e D o e P lain tiff s’ id e n tity i nfor m at i on t o t he fede r al governm ent . H azl et on fu rt her cont ends t hatPl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m s ar e m er i t l es s , and thatt he
o rd in a n c e s a re v a lid u n d e r f e d e ra l a n d s ta te la w . I I I . J URI S DI CTI ON AND S TANDA RD O F REVI EW Th e d i s t r i c tc o u r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S
. C. § § 1 3 3 1 a n d 1 3 6 7
. W e h a v e j u r i s d i c t i o n p u r s u a n t t o 2 8 U. S
. C. § 1291. W e r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i ons of l aw de novo
a n d its f a c tu a l f in d in g s f o r c le a r e rr o r. See , e. g. , McC ut cheon v
. A m . ’s Ser vi ci ng C o. , 5 6 0 F
. 3 d 1 4 3 , 1 4 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 9 )
. We
r evi ew a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s gr antof a mot i on t o pr ocee d anonym ous l yand gr antof a c onfi dent i al i t yor derforabus e of d is c re tio n . D oe v. C
. A
. R
. S. P r ot . P l us , I nc. , 527 F. 3d 358, 371 & n . 2 (3d C ir
. 2 0 0 8 ).

I V. S EV ER AB I LI TY AND S TA NDI NG W e fi rs tadd res s th e t hreshol d q uest i on of P l ai nti ffs’
s t andi n g . H ere , how ever , s t andi ng i m pl i cat es the i s s ue of
s ever ab il i t y– an i s s ue w hi ch has y ett o be expl i ci t l ydi s cus s ed i n t h i s s u i t . As we e x p l a i n ed i n C ontr act ors A s s ’ n v. C i t y of P h ila d e lp h ia , “ [ c ]o u rts co n sid e rin g c o n stitu tio n a l ch a llen g e s to27 s t atut es oft en anal y ze s t andi ng pr obl ems i n t er m s of the
s ever abi l i t y d o ct r i ne. . . . T he s ever abi l i t ydoctr i ne governs
w h ethe r [p lai n ti f

f s ] h av e stan d ing to ch all en g e [ an ] en ti re [o] r di nanc e, orj us t[ce r t ai n pr ovi s i ons ]
. ” 6 F. 3d 990, 996 ( 3d C ir
. 1 9 9 3 ). Sever abi l i t y , how ever , l i ke any non- j ur i s di ct i onal i s s ue, can be w ai ved, and i ti s cl eart hatH azl et on has , w i t h one
ex ce p ti o n , w aive d issue s o f se v era b il ityh ere . T h e d istri ct co u rt
cons i der ed w h ethe r Pl ai nt i ffs have s t andi ng t o chal l enge the “em ploym ent pr ov i si on s” and the “ho usi ng provis i on s” of these
o rd in a n c e s a s c o llec tiv e w h o les , an d c o n d u c ted its m e rits in q u ir ie s a c c o rd in g ly. See, e. g. , Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at518 ( “[T] he or di nance s ati s s ue have t w o di s t i nctpr ovi s i ons , one di r ect ed t o empl oym enti s s ues and one a i m ed atl andl or d/ t enant issue s, [a n d ] w e w il l discu ss e a ch top ic sep ara tel yw ith reg ard t o pre-em pt i on. ”)
. O n appea l , H azl et on does notcont es tt he d istri ct co u rt ’s fa ilu re to fu rth er se v er the o rdin an ce s. R athe r, H azl et on’ s br i ef char act er i zes t he or di nance s t he s ame w ayt he di s t r i ctcour tdi d. T hus , H azl et on ar gues t hat P lai n t i ffs l ack
s t an d ing t o chal l enge the “e m pl oy m entpr ovi s i ons ” and the “hous i ng pr ovi s i ons , ” and thatt he “e m pl o yme n tp r o v i s i o ns ” andWe note that Hazleton’s waiver of this issue likely speaks 13 to the merits of a se vera

bility analysis as well, as severability often turns signific antly

on intent. I f Hazleton had truly intended each provision of the IIRAO and the RO to operate independently , and to s tand or fall i nd epe nd e ntly

of theoth e r p ro vis ion s o f t

his regulatory

scheme , it surely

would have pressed that point sometime duringthis li tigation. It has not done so. 28 t he “housi ng pr ovi s i ons ” ar e notpr e- empt ed, w i t houtfur t her differ enti at i ng am on g those provis i on s. 13 T he s ol e s ever abi l i t yi s s ue H azl et on has notw ai ved
conce r ns t he I I R A O ’ s pr i vat e ca us e of ac ti o n . H azl et on has argued t hat the p ri vate cause of acti on i s severabl e from t he rest of t he I I R A O ’ s “empl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons ” both i n i t s br i ef a nd at
or al ar gu m en t. S ever abi l i t yof a l ocal or di nance i s a ques t i on
o f s t a t e l a w , a n d P e n n s yl v a n i a l a w f a v o r s s e v e r a b i l i t y. C o n trac tors A ss’n , 6 F .3 d a t99 7. A dd i t i on al l y , t here i s a pr es um pt i on i n favorof sever abi l i t yw her e, as her e, t he
o rd in a n c e s c o n ta i n a s e v e ra b ility p ro v is io n . I d. For an
o rdinanc e t o be s ever abl e, “[t ] he l egi s l at i ng bodym us thave i nt ended thatt he ac toror di nance be sepa r abl e and t he s t atut e or
o rd in a n c e m u st b e c a p a b le o f se p a ra tio n in f

a c t. T h e v a lid p o rtio n o f

th e e n a c tm e n t m u st b e in d e p e n d e n t an d c o m p lete
w i t hi n i t s el f. ” Saul

s bur y v. B ethl ehem St eel

C o. , 196 A
. 2d 664, 6 6 7 (P a . 1 9 6 4 ) ( e m p h a s is o m itte d ).29 H er e the I I R A O ’ s s ever abi l i t y p r ovi s i on i ndi cat es t hat H azl et on’ s C it yC ounci l di d i nt end the pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on p rov isi o n to b e se v era b le fro m the b a la n c e o f it s reg u lat o ry sch em e. Fur t her m or e, t he pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on i s not i n t e r t wi n e d wi t h t h e o t h e r “ e mpl o yme n t p r o v i s i o n s , ” mos tof
w h ich c o n c e rn b u sin e ss lice n sin g re q u ire m e n ts. It ca n o p e ra te i n d e p e n d e n t l y a n d i s “ c a p a b l e o f s e p a r a t i o n i n f a c t . ” I d. We th e re f o re conclude t hat i ti s sever able. A ccordi ng l y , w e w i ll
e v a lu a te P lain tiff

s’ s tan d in g to c h a llen g e th e IIR A O ’s p riv a te
caus e of act i on i ndepende nt l y of t hei r s t andi ng t o chal l enge the
o th e r “ e m p lo ym e n t p ro v is io n s ” a n d th e “ h o u s in g p ro v is io n s .” I n es s ence , t he ques t i on of s t andi ng ask s “w hethert he l i t i gant [s ] [ar e] ent i t l ed t o have t he cour t deci de t he mer i t s of the di s put e. ” W

a rth v . S e ld in , 4 2 2 U. S. 4 9 0 , 4 9 8 ( 1 9 7 5 )
. As we
w ill e x p lain , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e re is a t lea st o n e P lain tiff w ith
s t andi ng t o chal l enge t he empl oy m ent and hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of t hes e or di nance s . A ccor di ngl y , w e mustcons i dert he mer i t s of th e c h a lle n g e s to th o s e p ro v is io n s . See R um s f eld v. For um f

or A cadem i c and I

ns t i t ut i onalR ight

s , I nc. , 5 4 7 U .S
. 4 7 , 5 3 n .2 ( 2006) ( “[T] he pre s ence of one par t yw i t h s t andi ng i s s uffi ci ent to sa ti sfy A rt icl e III’s c ase -or-co n tr o v ersyreq u ir em en t. ”).30 H ow ever , as w e w i l l al s o expl ai n, w e fi nd t hatno Pl ai nt i ff ha s
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the I I R A O ’ s p ri vat e ca us e of a ct i on. A c c o rd in g ly , re v iew o f th e leg a lityo f th a t p ro v isio n m u st a w a it
a c h a l l e n g e b y a p l a i n t i f f w h o c a n e s t a b l i s h a n A r t i c l e I I I i n j u r y. A . G e ne r al Pri nc i pl e s of St andi ng T he i r r educi bl e mi ni m um of any s t andi ng i nqui r yder i ves d ir e c tly f ro m A rt ic le II I o f th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n . See L u ja n v . D e

fe n d e rs o

f W ild lif e , 5 0 4 U
. S
. 5 5 5 , 5 6 0 (19 9 2 ). A r t i cl e I I I l i m i t s t he j ur i s di ct i on of fe der al cour t s t o “C as es ” and

“ C o n tro v e rsie s.” U .S . C o n st. a rt. III, § 2 ; s ee al s o Luj an , 504 U .S
. a t 5 5 9 -6 0
. T h e ju d icia l p o w e r e sta b lish e d b yA rticle III is t her efor e not“an unc ondi t i oned author it y to de t er m i ne the
cons t i tut i onal i t yof l egi s l at i ve orexec ut i ve ac t s . ” Hei n v. Fr eedom Fr om R el igi on Found. , I nc. , 551 U
. S. 587, 598 ( 2007) (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itte d ). R athe r, fe d era l cou rt s are per m i t t ed t o addr es s t hes e q u e s t i o n s onl yi f ac tual l yadj udi cat i ng “t he r i ght s of i ndi vi dual s . ” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks
om i t t ed)
. T hus , t he i nqui r yi nt o s t andi ng m us tfocus on w hether
a c laim is be in g b ro u g h t “ b ya p a rtyw h o se in ter e sts e n tit le h im t o r ai s e i t . ” I

d. (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). A p lai n ti ff ’s

“ in ter e sts ” sa tisf

yA rticle III w h e n th e f

o llo w in g th re e e lem e n ts31 a re p re se n t: F irst, th e p lain tiff

m u st h a v e su f

f e re d a n in

ju ryin fa c t– a n i nv a s i on of

a l e ga l l ypr ot e c t e d i nt e r e st w hi ch i s ( a) concr et e and pa r t icul ar i zed, and ( b) act ual or i m m i nent , no t c o n j e c t ur al or hypot het ic al
. Second, t her e mustbe a c aus al co n nect i on betw een the i nj ur yand the conduc t c o m p lai n e d o f

– th e in

ju ryh a s to b e f

a irly t r a c e a b l e t o t h e c h a l l e n g e d a c t i o n o f t he defe ndant , and not t he r es ul t of t he i n d ependent a c tio n o f so m e th ird p a rtyn o t b e f o re th e c o u rt. T h ird , itm u st b e lik e ly , as o p p o se d to m e re ly s p e c u l a t i v e , t h a tt h e i n

j u r y w i l l b e r e d r e s s e d b y a favor abl e dec i s i on. Luj an , 5 04 U
. S
. at56 0-61 (i nternal ci t at i on s, qu otat i on m arks,
a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). I n addi t i on t o t hes e cons t i tut i onal l yr equi r ed el ement s of
s t andi ng, fede r al cour t s have de vel oped a bodyof s el f- i m pos ed lim ita tio n s o n th e e x e rc is e o f th e irju d ic ia l p o w e r. S e e E lk G r ove U ni f i ed Sch. D is t . v. N

ew dow , 5 4 2 U .S . 1 , 1 1 (2 0 0 4 ); s ee al s o O xf or d A s s ocs . v. W

as t e Sys
. A uth. , 271 F. 3d 140, 145 ( 3d C i r . 2001)
. A ccor di ngl y , “[e ] ven i n cas es conce dedl yw i t hi n our j ur i s di ct ion u nderA r t i cl e I I I , ” w e w i l l decl i ne t o deci de the
m e rits of a c a se w h e n th e se “ p ru d e n tial sta n d in g ” re q u ire m e n ts
a re n o t s a tis f

ie d
. E lk G ro v e U

n ifi e d S c h . D ist. , 542 U
. S. at11. Pr udent i al s t andi ng encompas s es : “the gener al pr ohi bi t i on on a l i t i gant ' s r ai s i ng another per s on' s l egal r i ght s , t he rule b arr i ng32 a d ju d ica tio n o f

g e n e ra lize d g rie v a n c e s m o re a p p ro p ria tely addr es s ed i n t he r epr es ent at i ve br anche s , and t he r equi r ement th a t a p lain tiff

' s c o m p la in t f

a ll w ith in th e z o n e o f

in ter e sts p r o t e c t e d b yt h e l a w i n v o k e d
. ” A l l en v. W r ight , 468 U
. S. 737, 7 5 1 (19 8 4 ). A n o rg a n iza tio n w ish in g to b rin g su it o n b e h a lf o f its
m ember s m us t s at i s fy a s peci fi c combi nat i on of c o ns t i tut i onal
a n d p r u d e n tia l s ta n d in g re q u ir e m e n ts . See U ni t ed Food and C om m er ci al W

or ker s U ni on Local 751 v. B r ow n G r p. , I nc. , 517 U
. S. 544, 556- 57 ( 1996) ( expl ai ni ng t hat t he fi r s t t w o pr ongs of the asso ciati o n al stan d ing test are co n sti tuti o n al, w h il e the thir d pr ong i s prudent i al )
. T o es t abl i s h t hati thas “as s oci at i onal
s t andi ng” and c an r epr es enti t s m ember s ’ i nt er es t s i n fede ral
c o u rt, an o rg a n iza tio n m u st s h o w th a t: (a ) its m e m b e rs w o u ld o th e rw ise h a v e sta n d in g to su e in th e ir o w n rig h t; (b ) th e in ter e sts it se e k s to pr ot e c ta r e germ ane t o t he or gani zat i on’ s purpos e; and ( c) n eit hert he cl ai m as s er t ed nort he r el i ef r eques t ed r equi r es t he par t i ci pat i on of i ndi vi dual m e m b e rs in th e law su it. H u n t v. W a sh
. S tate Ap

p le A d ve r. C o m m ’n , 432 U
. S. 333, 343 (19 7 7 ). H er e, Pl ai nt i ffs cl ai m t hatL ozano a nd t he H H B A haveAssuming the other re quirements of a ssociational 14 standingaremet, one member with standing is suff

icient for a

n org anization to have standing
. See H unt , 4 3 2 U
. S. at 3 4 2 ( “ [A ]n a sso c iatio n ma

y havesta ndingso le ly

a s th erepre se ntativ eof

its (continued...) 33 s t a n d i n g t o c h a l l e n g e t h e e mp l o yme n t p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I I RA O, and thatL ozano, t he H H B A , and the D oe Pl ai nt i ffs have
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of the I I R A O and th e R O
. B. C ons t i t ut i ona l St andi ng 1. The Em pl oym e nt Pro vi s i ons A s di s c u s s e d a b ove, t he I I R A O ’ s empl oy m entpr ovi s i ons
r equi r e busi nes s es t o s ubm i t aff i davi t s aff

i r m i ng t hat t heydo not
u til iz e th e se rv ice s o f

u n law f u l w o rk e rs; in c e n tiv ize , an d in
c e rta in c irc u m sta n c e s m a n d a te, th e u se o f E -V e r if y ; cr e a te pr ocedur es foradj udi cat i ng i ndepende nt l yof fe der al l aw
w hethera bus i nes s has empl oy ed an unau tho r i zed a l i en; and pen al i ze a bu si ness for doing so b y su spend i ng i t s busi ness lic e n s e . T h e d istric t co u rt h e ld th a t L o z a n o h a d sta n d in g to chal l enge thes e pr ovi s i ons for hi m s el f, and thatt he H H B A had
s t andi ng t o chal l enge them on behal f of i t s m ember , R udol fo E s pi nal
. L ozano i s a l andl or d, and E sp inal i s a l andl or d and

14(...continued) 14 members. . . . Theassociation must alleg e that its members, or any one of them , a

resu ff e ri ngimm e diateor

thre ate ne d in

jur y a s a re su lt o f t hec halleng e d a c tio n o f t

heso rt that w ou ld m akeout a justiciable ca se had themembers themse lves brought suit.”) (alteration in orig inal) (inter nal quotation marks omitted) (empha sis added). The e mploy

ment provisions of the IIRAO regulate the 15 behavior of all “business entities,” a term whic h as wenoted above, is de fined e xpansively and includes e ven those e ntities that do not have or

need busine ss licenses. At the same time, compliancewith these provisions is primarily , although not e nti re ly , c oe rc e d thro ugh re gulatin gtheprov isi on of bu sin e ss licenses. L ozano and Espinal are plainly business entities under theI IRA O; ho we ve r, ne ith e r h a s te sti fi e d a s to wh e ther h eha s a business license. We agre ewi th t

heCourt of Appe a ls f

or theEi ghth

Circ uit when f ace d with the same issue in Gray v . Ci ty of V alle yPa rk, 567 F.3d 976 ( 8th Cir. 2009), that this does not deprive them of sta nding . Re g ardle ss o f whe ther t he sePlaintif

fs havebu sin e ss licenses, the IIRAO applies to them as business entities, and the y “must, as law- abidingcitizens, comply and conf orm their conduc t acc ordingto [ the ordinanc e’s] directives.” Id. at 98 5; see also id. at 986 (“ At the ver

y least, as a

business entity

covered by

the ordinanc e, [plaintiffs] may not knowingly

rec ruit, hire for e mpl oy me nt, or c ontin ueto e mpl oy , a

n unla wf ul w or ke r t o pe rf or m w or k w ith in t heCity . And , whe n a

valid c omp laint

is lodg e d, [plaintif

fs ] wo uld bere qu ir e d to
. . . p ro vid eidenti ty information to the . . . Code Enforcement Office .”) ( internal citation omitted). 34 ow nerof a r eal es t at e agency . B ot h ar e bus i nes s ent i t i es under the I I R A O , and both s om et i m es hi r e contr act or s t o per fo rm

15
w o rk o n their re n tal p rop erti es. A cc o rdin g ly , the d istri ct co u rt found t hatt heyfac ed i m m i nent c o ncr et e i nj ur y , beca us e i f the IIR A O w e re e n f

o rc e d , the yw o u ld b e c o m p e lled “ to c o m p ly wi t h [ i t s ] e mp l o y e rr e q u i r e me n t s . . . a d d i n g a bur de n o f t i me35 and expe ns e t o [t hei r ] oper at i ons . ” See Loz ano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at489. H azl et on chal l enges t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i on on several groun ds. H azl et on’ s pr i m aryar gum enton appeal is t hatt he “i nj ur y ” the s e Pl ai nt i ffs fac e i s not hi ng m or e than the “c os tof compl i ance ” w it h the I I R A O , and thatt hi s i s a gene r al i zed bur den i ns uffi ci ent l ypar t i cul ar i zed t o s at i s fy t he i nj ur y - i n- fac t req u ir em en t of

A rt icl e III. It i s w ell -estab li sh ed that an injury
m us tbe par t i cul ar i zed t o s uppor ts t andi ng. A “part i cul ar i zed” i nj ur yi s one that“af

fe ct[s] the pl ai nt i ff i n a per s onal and i ndi vi dual w ay , ” A l

st on v. C ou ntr

yw i de F i n. C o rp . , 585 F. 3d 7 5 3 , 763 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( quot i ng Luj an , 504 U
. S. at560 n. 1) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) , and i s es t abl i s hed w h en a p lain tiff sh o w s th a t s/h e h a s “ su sta in e d o r is im m e d iate lyin danger of s us t ai ni ng s om e di r ect i nj ur y . . . and notm er el yt hat [ s/]h e su f

f e rs in so m e in d e f

in ite w a yin c o m m o n w ith p e o p le gen era ll y , ” A m s . U

ni t ed f orSepar at i on of

C hur ch & St at e v. R eagan , 786 F. 2d 194, 199 ( 3d C i r . 19 8 6 ) ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m a rk s o m itte d ). T hus , t he S u p reme C our thas r ej ect ed att empt s by t axpay er s t o br i ng s ui t s chal l engi ng t he governm ent ’ s us e of t ax36 dol l ar s . For i ns t ance , i n Fr othi ngham v. Mel l on , 262 U
. S. 447 ( 1923) , t he S upr eme C our t hel d t hata t axpay erl acke d s t andi ng t o ch a l l e n g e a f

e d e r a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n s a c tt h a ts h e a l l e g ed vi ol at ed the Tent h A m endment
. T he C o u r texpl ai ned thatt he har m a t axpay ers uffe r s w hen the governm entunl aw ful l yuses t axpay erfu n d s is “s har ed w i t h m i l l i ons of other s [and] compar at i vel ym i nut e and i ndet er m i nabl e. ” I d. at 48 7. B ecause
s u c h a n i n

j u r yi s a ma t t e r“ o f

p u b l i c a n d n o to f

i n d i v i d u al
c o n c e rn ,” it is n o t p a rticu lar ize d , an d th e re f o re in su f f icie n t to g iv e ri s e t o A rt ic le II I s ta n d in g . I d. T he C our thas r eaf

fi r m ed th is c o n c lu sio n m a n ytim e s s in c e , ex p lain in g th a t:
a p lain tiff ra isin g o n ly a g e n e ra lly a v a ilab le g ri e v a n c e a b o u t g o v e rn m e n t – c la im ing o n ly h arm t o hi s and eve r y cit izen’ s i nt er es ti n pr oper appl i cat i o n of the C ons t i tut i on and l aw s , and se e k in g r e lief

th a t n o m o re d ire c tlya n d tan g ib ly benef i t s hi m t han i tdoes t he publ i c atl ar ge – does n o ts t a t e a n A r t i c l e I I I c a s e o rc o n t r o v e r s y. Luj an , 504 U
. S. at573- 74. H azl et on at t empt s t o tr ans pos e thes e pr i nci pl es i nt o a q u ite d if f e re n t co n tex t. H a z leto n su g g e s ts th a t b e c a u se a ll bus i ness e nt i t i es i n H azl et on ar e r equi r ed t o compl yw i t h t he IIR A O , the b u rd e n o f c o m p ly in g w ith th e o rd in a n c e is “gene r al i zed” and not“part i cul ar i zed. ” A ccor di ngl y , i tar gues37 t hatL ozano and E s pi nal – and pr es um abl yal l bus i nes s ent i t i es i n H azl et on – l ack s t andi ng t o chal l enge t he I I R A O ’ s pr ovi s i ons
a f f e c tin g th e m . T h e a rg u m e n t c o u ld n o t b e m o re m is g u id e d
. P lain tiff s h e re a re n o t m e m b e rs o f th e g e n e ra l p u b lic compl ai ni ng of som e i ndefi ni t e and i ndet er m i nabl e harm , s uch as t h e un co n sti tuti o n al ex p en d itu re of their t ax -do ll ars. R athe r, L ozano a nd E s pi nal ar e di r ectt ar get s of an or di nance t heyal l ege t o b e u n cons t i tut i onal , compl ai ni ng of w hatt hator di nance
w o u ld c o m p e l th e m to d o . T h u s, th e a p p ro p ria te c o m p a riso n is nott o t axpay er s s eeki ng i nval i dat i on o f gover nm ent expendi tur es , butt o t axpay er s s eeki ng i nval i dat i on of t axes i m pos ed on them. A s t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n He in , 551 U
. S. a t5 9 9 , i ti s i n c o n t r o v e r t i b l e t h a tt a x p a y e r s i n t h i s s e cond
c a teg o ryh a v e sta n d in g : “[ o ]f c o u rse , a ta x p a y e r h a s sta n d in g to chal l enge the c o l l ect i on of a s peci fi c t ax as s es s m entas
uncons t i tut i onal ; bei ng for ced t o pays uch a t ax caus es a r eal and i m m edi at e ec onom i c i nj ur yt o t he i ndi vi dual t axpay er . ” F u rther m or e, H azl et on’ s i ns i s t ence t hatt hes e Pl ai nt i ffs l ack st an d in g becau se theiri njur i es ar e w i dely -s hared (atl east among busi nes s ent i t i es i n H azl et on) i s m i s pl ace d. T he fa ctt hat an i nj ur yi s w i del y - s har ed is nott he pr i m aryfocus of the38 p a rt ic u la ri z e d in q u ir y . See Fed. E l ect i on C om m ’ n v. A ki ns , 524 U .S . 1 1 , 2 3
- 2 4 (1 9 9 8 ). A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p lain e d in U ni t ed Stat es v. St udent s C hal l engi ng R egulat or y Agency Pr oc e du r e s ( “SCRA P”) , 4 1 2 U
. S. 669, 688 ( 1973) , “[t ] o deny
s t andi ng t o per s ons w ho ar e i n fac ti nj ur ed si m pl ybeca us e many ot her s ar e al s o i nj ur ed, w oul d m ean thatt he mosti nj ur i ous and
w i d e s p r e a d G o v e r n m e n ta c t i o n s c o u l d b e q u e s tio n e d b yn o b o d y. W e c a n n o t ac c e p t this con c lu sio n .” T h e q u e stio n o f p a rticu lar ity tur ns on t he natur e o f the har m , noton t he t ot al num berof per s ons aff

ect ed. L o z ano and E spi nal w i l l no tsuffer i n som e “i nd efi n ite
w a y i n c o m m o n w ith p e o p le g e n e ra lly ” if th e IIR A O is
e n f o rc e d
. Fr othi ngham , 262 U
. S. at488. R ather , t heyw i l l be
a f f e c t e d i n a “ p e r s o n a l a n d i n d i v i d u a l wa y ” b ywh a tt h e I I RA O
re q u ir e s o f

th e m . Luj an , 504 U
. S. at 561 n. 1. E nfor cementof th e IIR A O w o u ld c re a te c o e rc iv e p re ss u re s c o m p e lli n g th e m to i nves t i gat e the w or k au thor i zat i on s t atus of the pr os pect i ve contr act or s t heys eek t o hi r e. A ddi t i onal l y , t heyw oul d be
r equi r ed t o s ubm i taff

i davi t s t o H azl et on’ s C ode Enfo rce m ent O ffi ce a ffi r m i ng t hatt heydo not know i ngl y ut i l i ze t he s er vi ces of “unl aw ful w or ker s . ” Fai l ur e t o compl y w i t h ei t herdi r ect i ve39 cou l d r esul t i n s i gn i fi cant sanct i on s. T hese co st l yrequi rem ents , i m pos ed di r ect l yand p u rposef ul l yon t hes e Pl ai nt i ffs , ar e a p a rticu lar ize d in

ju ry -in -f a c t. H azl et on al so ar gues thateven i f the “c os tof
co m p li an ce ” is a the o reti ca ll ysu ff ici en t i n juryu n d er A rt icl e III, t hes e Pl ai nt i ffs fai l t o s how t hatt he cos tof com pl i ance w i t h t he I I RA O i s g r e a t e rt h a n t h e c o s to f c o mp l i a n c e wi t h f

e d e r a l l a w. T h u s , a rg u es H az let o n , thes e P lai n ti ff s fa il to sh o w that there
w oul d be a n y ac tual cos tof compl i ance w i t h t he I I R A O i t s el f. H az let o n is m ist ak en . F ed era l l aw ce rt ainlyd o es n o t r eq u ir e any one t o s ubm i tan af

fi davi tt o H azl et on’ s C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce. T hough r el at i vel ys m al l , t hatcos tis su ff ic i entfor
s t andi ng purpos es . “[A ] n i dent i fi abl e t r i fl e i s enough for
s t andi ng. ” S e e S CRAP , 412 U
. S. at689 n. 14 ( i nt ernal quot at i on
m a rk s o m itte d ). T he I I R A O i s al s o m uch br oadert han fe d er al l aw , and
coer ces as w el l as i ncent i vi zes di ffe r ent behavi or s . L ozano a nd E sp in a l tes tifie d th a t th e yo n ly h ire w o rk e rs to p e rf o rm d isc re te
re p a irp roje c ts o n th e irre n ta l p ro p e rt ie s a s n e e d e d
. See J
. A. 1116, 1122 ( L ozano ha s “pr obl ems w i t h [hi s ] r oof” a nd i nt ends t o hi r e “a contr act or ” t o m ake r epai r s . ) ; J
. A
. 1216, 1221 ( E s pi nal40 in ten d s to h ire so m e o n e to d o “ p lu m b in g ” a n d “ e lec trica l”
r epai r s as par tof the ongoi ng r enovat i ons of hi s r ent al pr oper t i es . H e al s o ant i ci pat es hi r i ng s om eone for t as ks s uch as “s hovel i ng s now . ”)
. Such w or ker s w ou ld al m os tcert ai nl ybe
c o n s i d e r e d i n d e p e n d e n tc o n t r a c t o r s u n d e rf e d e r a l l a w. As we di s cus s i n gr eat erdet ai l bel ow , the feder al r equi r ement t hat
e m p lo y e rs v e rif

yth e w o rk a u th o riz a tio n sta tu s o f th e ir
em pl oy e e s do e s no ta pp l yt o i nd e pe nd e ntc on t r a c t or s . Thus , f e d e ra l law w o u ld n o t re q u ire e ith e r L o z a n o o r E sp in a l to d e ter m in e su c h p e rso n s’ w o rk a u th o riz a tio n sta tu s. In c o n tra st, t he I I R A O pr ohi bi t s Pl ai n ti ff busi nes s ow ner s fr om

“ p e rm it[tin g ], d isp a tch [ in g ], o r in stru c t[ in g ] a n y p e rso n w h o is an unl aw ful w or kert o per for m w or k” ( r egar dl es s of w hethert he per s on is a n empl oy ee oran i ndepende ntcontr act or ) , and thus compel s t hem t o ver i fy the w or k author i zat i on of anyw or ker
w h o se se rv ice s th e yu til ize . II R A O § 4 A ; s ee al s o J
. A
. 1444. T her efor e, w e re

j ectH azl et on’ s at t empt t o r efut e the s t andi ng of L o zano a nd E s pi nal byar gui ng t hatt he I I R A O i m pos es no bu rdens bey on d those i m po sed byfede ral l aw . Itcl earl ydo es. L o z a n o a n d E sp in a l h a v e e sta b lish e d th a t if th e IIR A O is enfor ced, i t w i l l caus e t hem par t i cul ar i zed i nj ur yr edr es s abl e by41 th is c o u rt. S in c e th e e m p lo ym e n t p ro v isio n s o f th e IIR A O a p p ly to ind ep en d en t con tr ac tors, L o za n o an d E sp inal (an d there fo re th e H H B A ) have st and i ng t o ch al l eng e t ho se provi si on s. H ow ever , i ti s m uch l es s cl earw hether t he pr i vat e ca us e of act i on app l i es t o indepe nd e n tcon t ract ors, and w e m ust
se p a ra tely e v a lu a te w h e th e r L o z a n o o r E sp in a l h a v e sta n d in g to chal l enge thatpr ovi s i on 2. P ri vat e C ause of

A ct i on Un l i k e t h e o t h e re mp l o yme n tp r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I I RA O,
w h ich im p o se re stric tio n s o n a b u sin e ss e n tity n o t o n lyw h e n it “hi r e[s ] forempl oym ent , o rcont i nue[s ] t o empl oy ” an empl oy ee, butal s o w h eneve ri t“perm i t [s ] , di s pat ch[e s ] , or i ns t ruct [s ] anyper s on . . . t o per form w or k, ” I I R A O § 4A , t he pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on on i t s fac e af for ds r i ght s onl yt o an “aggr i eved em

pl oyee . ” I I R A O § 4E ( emphasi s added)
. U nder Sect i on 4E of t he I I R A O , i t i s an “unfa i rbus i nes s pr act i ce” for a bus i nes s ent i t yt o t er m i nat e “a nyempl oy ee w h o i s notan
un law ful w or ker ” w hi l e i tcont i nues t o empl oyan unl aw ful
w o rk e r. Id
. I f i tdoes s o, t he busi n ess en t i t yi s l i abl e t o t he

“ a g g ri e v e d e m p lo y e e ” f o r tre b le d a m a g e s . I

d. W hereas the rest of t he I I R A O s peaks of “ w o r ker s , ” the s ect i on cr eat i ng t he42 pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on appea r s t o i nur e s ol el yt o t he bene fi tof

“ e m p lo y e e s .” L o z a n o a n d E sp in a l h a v e n o t tes tifie d th a t th e yc u rre n tly
em p loyany one w ho w oul d be cons i der ed an “ empl oy ee, ” nor h a s e ith e r tes tifie d a b o u t a n y in ten t to d o so . M o re o v e r, ev e n if t heyhad – o r even i f w e w ere t o co nst rue t his se ct i on as al so i nu ri ng t o the ben efi tof d i scharged indep end ent contractor s – L ozan o and E spi nal hav e no t t est i fi ed that t hey hav e plans to hi r e mor e t han one per s on , empl oy ee orcontr act or , atanyone t i m e, and t h e rec o r d i s i ns uffi ci entt o s uppor ts uch a f i ndi ng. Y et , t he IIR A O ’s pri vate cause of acti on ari ses onl yi f atl east t w o per s ons w or k fort he s ame bus i nes s ent i t y at t he s ame t i m e. A d d iti o n a lly , u n lik e o th e r p ro v isio n s th e y t e stif ied a b o u t, L ozano and Espi nal di d nott es t i fyt hatt heyfea rpr os ecut i on undert he pr i vat e ca us e of act i on pr ovi s i on ort hatt heyhave a ny
r eas on t o fea rs uch pr os ecut i on. W e r eal i ze, of cour s e , t hatt he thr eatof futur e pr os ecut i on
ca n ce rt ainlyb e a su ff ici en tl y“im m in e n t” i n

juryto su p p o rt A rt ic le II I s ta n d in g . See Pa. v. W
. V a. , 2 6 2 U
. S. 553, 593 ( 1923) ( “O ne does n othave t o aw ai tt he cons um m at i on of t hr eat ened i nj ur yt o obt ai n pr event i ve r el i ef. ”)
. H ow ever , t hat43 th re a t m u s t b e m o re th a n a p o ss ib ili tyd e p e n d e n t o n m u lti p le
c o n tin g e n c ie s th a t m a yn e v e r o c c u r. See, e. g. , C ar i bbean Mar i ne Ser vs . C o. v. B aldr i ge , 844 F. 2d 668, 675 ( 9t h C i r. 1 9 8 8 ) (e x p lain in g th a t f e a rs o f liab ili tyre lian t o n m u lti p le cont i ngenc ies d o notgi ve a pl ai nt i ff s t andi ng)
. L ozano a nd E sp in a l w o u ld b e in

ju r e d b yS e c tio n 4 E o f th e IIR A O o n lyif th e yp ro c e e d e d to h ir e m u lt ip le e m p lo ye e s , t e r m in a te d o n e w h ile
re ta in in g a n o th e r, an d w e re su e d b y(o r h a d re a so n to f e a r su it by ) t he t er m i nat ed empl oy ee. T hi s at t enuat ed s equenc e of
ev en ts i s n o t eve n su g g ested b ythis reco rd, an d itis th ere fo re to o ten u o u s to su p p o rt a c o n c lu sio n th a t e ith e r ha s th e re q u isite p e rs o n a l in te re s t to e s ta b lis h a “ c a s e ” o r “ c o n tr o v e rs y .” A ccor di ngl y , w e conc l ude thatt he di s t r i ct co ur tl acke d j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i der t he m er i t s of t hes e Pl ai nt i ffs ’ chal l enges t o t he I I R A O ’ s pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on. 3. H ous i ng Pr ov i s i ons T he housi ng pr ovi s i ons of the I I R A O pr ohi bi tt he k n o w in g o r rec k les s h a rb o rin g o f “ ill e g a l a lien s” (d e f in e d to inclu d e the k n o w ing o r reck less p rov isi o n o f re n tal h o u sing );
s ubj ectl andl or ds w h o vi ol at e thi s pr ohi bi t i on t o s i gni fi cant
m onet arys anct i ons ; and i nval i dat e anyl eas e ent er ed i nt o by44 p e rso n s la c k in g law f

u l im m ig ra tio n sta tu s. T h e R O re q u ire s a ll per s ons o v e rt h e a g e o f e i g h t e e n who s e e k t o l i v e i n r e nt ed pr oper t yt o obt ai n an occ upancyper m i t ; m akes pos s es s i on of document at i on of l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus a r equi r ement for
re c e iv in g th a t p e rm it; p ro h ib its lan d lo rd s f ro m r e n tin g to p e rso n s w h o lac k a p e rm it; a n d su b jec ts la n d lo rd s w h o d o so to
s us pens i on of t hei rr ent al l i cens e and a concomi t antpr ohi bi t i on
o n c o lle c tin g re n t f

ro m th e d w e llin g u n its in v o lv e d
. T he di s t r i ct cour t hel d t hat L ozano, t he H H B A ( agai n on behal f of i t s m ember E s pi nal ) , and t he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs have
s t andi ng as l andl or ds and t enant s t o chal l enge the hous i ng p r o v i s i o n s o f

t h e I I RA O a n d t h e RO
. a . L a n d lord P laintiff

s T he di str ictcour tconcl uded thatl andl or ds L ozano a nd E s pi nal had s uffe r ed a c ons t i tut i onal l y s uffi ci enti nj ur y - i n- fac t beca us e the hous i ng pr ovi s i ons m ade i tm or e di ffi cul tfort hem t o r entapart m ent s . T he cour t al s o concl uded t heyhad s t andi ng beca u s e Haz l e t o n ’ s e n f o r c e me n to f

t h e h o u s i n g p r o v i s i o ns
w oul d di r ect l yi m pos e ce r t ai n r equi r ement s on t hem, cos t i ng th e m b o th tim e a n d m o n e y . See Loz ano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at488- 89. H azl et on cont es t s t he cou rt ’s concl us i ons on s ever al45 groun ds. H azl et on fi r s tar gues t hatthe r ec o rd fa i l s t o s uppor tt he d istri ct co u rt ’s fin d ing that the h o u sing p rov isi o n s m ad e itm o re diffi cultfor L ozan o an d E sp i nal t o rent t heirpropert i es. A ccor di ng t o H azl et on, t he re cor d r evea l s t hat t he l andl or ds had t he s ame “m i xed s ucce s s ” i n r ent i ng apart m ent s bot h befor e and
a f t e r p a s s a g e o f t h e o r d i n a n c e s . Haz l e t o n ’ s Br
. 2 3
. H azl et on there fo re c l ai m s tha t L o za n o an d E sp inal h av e su ff ere d n o injury atal l
. W e ca nnotagr ee. T he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s fi ndi ng t hat bot h L ozano and Espi nal hadmor e di ffi cul t yfi ndi ng t enant s fort hei rpr oper t i es fol l ow i ng pas s age of

t he I I R A O and the R O i s s uppor t ed byt he r ecor d,
a n d c e rta in lyn o t c lea rly e rro n e o u s. L o z a n o tes tifie d th a t ten a n ts
w ho had bee n r ent i ng fr om hi m since he acqui r ed hi s r ent al pr oper t yi n 2005 “r an aw ay ” upon l earni ng aboutt he or di nance s in m i d- 2006. J
. A
. 1108. L ozano f ur t hert es t i fi ed thathe has been a bl e to fi nd t enant s onl ys por adi cal l ys i nce then, and that
a t lea st o n e p ro sp e c tiv e ten a n t, w h o h a d b e e n q u ite in ter e ste d in an apa rt m en t, r eac t ed w i t h conce r n and qui ckl ydepart ed af t er L ozano i nfor m ed hi m aboutt he re qui r ement s of the I I R A O and t he R O
. J
. A
. 1111- 12. E s pi nal s i m i l ar l y t es t i fi ed t hat he has46 had m o re d iffi cul t yi n r ent i ng apart m ent s s i nce pa s s age of t he
or di na n c e s , a n d t h a t o n a t l e a s t o n e o c c a s i o n , h e s h o wed a n apart m entt o pot ent i al t enant s , w ho “w er e goi ng t o t ake [ i t ] , ” but aft ert el li ng t hes e appl i cant s aboutt he or di nance s , “theynever
c a lled [ h im ] b a c k .” J .A . 1 2 1 5 . T h e r e c o rd th e re f o re su p p o rts t he di s t r i ct cour t ’ s concl us i on t hat L ozano and Espi nal s uffe r ed
s uffi ci enti nj ur yt o es t abl i s h A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. H a z leto n n e x t ar g u e s tha t e v e n if L o z a n o a n d E sp in a l d id l os e t enant s and r ent al i ncome becaus e of thes e or di nance s , s uch an i nj ur y i s not “l egal l ycogni zabl e” be caus e l andl or ds have no ri ghtt o r entt o i l l egal al i ens . H azl et on m akes t he r ather hyperbol i c met aphorof compar i ng t hes e Plai nt i ffs t o “drug deal er s ” as s er t i n g a cl ai m t o t he pr ocee ds of thei runl aw ful
a c t i v i t y. T h e C i t y s t a t e s : “ [ j ] u s ta s a d ru g d e a l e rh a s n o l e g a l l ycogni zabl e i nt er es t i n i ncome de r i ved fr om vi ol at i ons of fe der al d ru g law s, a lan d lo rd h a s n o leg a lly -c o g n iz a b le in ter e st in i ncome der i ved fr om cont i nui ng violati ons of fe der al i m m i gr at i on l aw . ” H azl et on’ s B r . 24. H azl et on’ s compar i s on i s as r egr et t abl e as i ti s uns ound. I t is u n fortunat e thatw e mustpoi ntoutt hatt her e i s no evidence in t he record t hat the p ro sp ect i ve tenants w ho cho se47 n o t t o ren t from P lai n ti ff s w ere h ere u n law fu ll y , as H az let o n ’s
ar gum entpr es um es . T her e ar e cer t ai nl yot herr eas ons w hys uch i nvas i ve or di nance s m i ghtdi s s uade a p rospect i ve t enantfr om
r ent i ng i n H azl et on. H ow ever , even i f w e w er e t o as s um e that
a ll d e ter re d ten a n ts w e re h e re u n law f u ll y, w e w o u ld still concl ude thatPl ai nt i ffs as s er tan i nj ur ycogn izabl e undert he l a w. B yc o m p a rin g lan d lo rd s to p e rso n s w h o s e ll d ru g s in di r ect co n tr avent i on of fe der al l aw , H azl et on di s t or t s bot h t he appl i cabl e l aw and the i nt er es t s t hes e Pl ai nt i ffs as s er t . Feder al l aw s i m pl ydoes notpr ohi bi tl andl or ds fr om r ent i ng ( i n t he
or di narycour s e of bus i nes s ) t o per s ons w ho l ack l aw ful im m ig ra tio n sta tu s. N o r d o e s f e d e ra l la w d ire c tlyp ro h ib it p e r s o n s l a c k i n g l a wf

u l s t a tu s f

r o m r e n t i n g a p a r t me n t s . As we di s cus s i n fur t herdet ai l bel ow , t her e i s a fe der al pr ohi bi t i on ag ains t “ harbor i ng” of a l i en s lack ing law fu l prese n ce . H o w ev er, t hi s pr ohi bi t i on i s notnear l ys o br oad as H azl et on’ s , and has
n ev er b ee n h eld to ap p lyto a lan d lor d w h o d o es n o thing m o re t han r ent t o a t enant w ho happens t o be her e unl aw ful l y . I n l i ght
o f th ese rea li ti es, w e thin k the in terest tha t the se P lai n ti ff s ass ert i s m or e appr opr i at el y char act er i zed as an i nt er es ti n cont i nui ng48 to o p e ra te th e ir re n tal b u sin e ss e s c o n sis ten t w ith th e les s c o stly
m a n d a tes o f f

e d e ra l la w , a n d th a t is a n in ter e st w h ich su p p o rts A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. H azl et on al so argues t hat these P l ai nti ffs fai l t o est abli sh t hatt he I I R A O and the R O caus ed w hat everi nj ury theyhave
s uffe r ed bec au se ac t i ons of i ndepende ntt hi r d- par t i es ( t he pot ent i al t enant s ) ar e r es pons i bl e for tha ti nj ur y , nott he
o r d i n a n c e s t h e ms e l v e s . Haz l e t o n d r a ws i t s a r g u me n t f r o m t he di s cus s i on of caus ati o n i n Luj an . T h ere , the S u p rem e C o u rt expl ai ned thatw hen t h e “pl ai nt i ff i s hi m s el f an obj ect ” of a cha l l e n g e d g overnm entact i on, “ther e i s or di nar i l yl i t t l e ques t i on th a t th e a c tio n . . . h a s ca u se d h im in ju ry , an d th a t a ju d g m e n t .

. . w i l l r edr es s i t . ” Luj an , 504 U
. S. at 561- 62. H ow ever , w hen a pl ai nt i ff’ s as s ert ed i nj ur yar i s es fr om t he governm ent ’ s al l egedl yunl aw ful r egul at i on ( or l ack of r egul at i on) of som eon e el se , m u c h m o re is neede d. I n t hatci r cumst ance , caus at i on and r edr es s abi l i t yor di nar i l yhi nge on the r es pons e of t he r egul at ed ( orr egul ab le) thi r d par t yt o t he governm en tact i on ori nact i on – and perhaps on t he r es pons e of other s as w el l
. . . . T hus , w hen the pl ai nt iff i s nothi m s el f the obj ectof the g o v ernm ent act i on or i nacti on he ch al l eng es, sta n d in g is n o t p re c lu d e d , b u t itis o rd in a rily s ubs t ant i al l ym or e di ffi cul tt o es t abl i s h. Luj an , 5 0 4 U .S
. a t 5 6 2 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted).49 H a z leto n c o n ten d s tha t th e lan d lo rd P lain tiff s c a n n o t sa tisf

yth is h ig h e r b u rd e n . I n P i t tN ew s v. F is her , 2 1 5 F
. 3 d 3 5 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 2 0 0 0 ) , we di s cus s ed w h en the r egul at i on of a thi r d- par t y“ca us es ” a p l a i n t i f f ’ s i n j u r yf o rt h e p u rp o s e s o f

Ar t i c l e I I I
. Th e r e, Penns y l vani a had amended i t s L i quorC ode t o i m pos e cr i m i nal
sa n c tio n s o n b u sin e ss e s th a t ad v e rtise d a lco h o lic b e v e r a g e s in pu bli cat i on s dir ect ed atedu cat i on al i nst i tuti on s. T he P i t tN ew s,
a stu d e n t-ru n n e w sp a p e r a t th e U n iv e rsity o f P itt sb u rg h , su e d to enj oi n enfor cementof thi s amendm ent , an d asser t ed s t andi ng bas ed on the fa ctt hati t s advert i s i ng r evenues h ad suff er ed beca us e of a dver t i s er s ’ compl i an ce w i t h t he l aw . T he di s t r i ct
c o u r th e l d t h a t“ i n d i r e c te c o n o mi c e f f e c t s r e s u l t i n g f

r o m a
r egul at i on ai m ed att hi r d par t i es ” w er e i ns uffi ci ent t o gi ve The P itt N e w s s ta n d in g . I

d. at358. In rev ersing that ruli n g , w e ex p lai n ed that the a d v erti sers
wo u l d n o th a v e c a n c e l l e d t h e i rc o n t r a c t s wi t h T h e P i t tNe ws
w e re it n o t f

o r th e re g u latio n . T h e f a c t th a t ad v e rtise rs w o u ld
cance l t heircon t ract s, th e rebyreduci ng adv ert i si ng revenu es,

“ w a s n o t o n ly re a so n a b lyf o re se e a b le w h e n th e C o m m o n w e a lth de c i d e d t o e n a c t a n d e n f o r c e [ t h e Act ] , i t was t h e v e r y goal of50 t he s t atut e. ” Id
. a t 3 6 1 ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n o m i t t e d )
. A c c o r d i n g l y,
w e c o n c lu d e d th a t th e in ju ry th e n e w sp a p e r su f

f e re d w a s “ f

a irly t raceabl e” t o en forcem ent of t he st atute agai nsti t s advert i ser s. T he s i tuat i on i n Pi t tNe ws i s anal ogous t o t he s i tuat i on her e. T he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of t he I I R A O and t h e R O h ave al r eadydet err ed ce r t ai n r ent er s fro m contr act i ng forhous i ng
w ith L o z a n o a n d E sp in a l, an d th e se o rd in a n c e s w ill c o n tin u e to det er otherr ent er s i f theyar e enf or ced. T hi s det err ence “w as
no ton l y reas on ably foreseeabl e” w hen H azl et on enacted t hese
or di nance s , i tw as H azl et on’ s “v erygoal
. ” I d. T he i nj ur i es L o za n o and Espi nal as s er tar e a di r ect , pr edi ct abl e, and
a n ticip a ted c o n se q u e n c e o f th e re g u latio n . A c c o rd in g ly , the ir i njur i es ar e “fair l yt raceabl e” t o the ordi nan ces. M or eover , H azl et on’ s ar gum ent i gnor es t hatL ozano a nd E s pi nal ar e notj us t d ir ec t l yi m pact ed byt he or di nance s , but d i r e c t l yr e g u l a t e d a s we l l
. T h e h o u s i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e I I RA O and the R O r egul at e b o th t enant s and l andl ords
. A l t hough t he i nj ur yon w hi ch H azl et on focus es , t he i nj ur yof l os tr ent al i ncome, i s caus ed byt he r equi r ement s i m pos ed on t enant s , t he di s t r i ct cour t found, and w e cer t ai nl yagr ee, t hatt hes e l andl or ds
w oul d be equa l l yi nj ur ed by t he r equi r ement s t he I I R A O and theWe note, however, that the RO explicitly exempts from 16 its reg istration and licenserequirements those “[p] roper ties which consist of a double home , half of which is let for oc cupanc y and half of which is Owner -occupied as the O wner ’s re sidence .” RO § 11d. At trial, L ozano testified that he owns a “two-f amily” home. J .A. 1107. He lives in oneunit with his family , and rents out the oth e r u nit , whic h is su

bdivi de d into t

wo sepa ra tea pa rtme nts , to help him pay

the mortg ag e. SeeJ .A. 1107-08. To our knowledg e, the par ties have not raised whethe r the “ double home” e x ception applies to L ozano, and the district cour t did not address the issue. I f that exception does apply , L ozano could not establish a suffic ient injury to challeng e the RO. See Addiction Specialists, Inc. v. Twp. of Hampton , 411 F.3d 399, 405 ( 3d Cir. 2005) (explaining that beca use standingis a jurisdictional issue, it cannot be waived, and thec ourt mus t, whe n n e c e ssa

ry, c on sid e r i t su a s

po nte ). Howe ver, even a ssuming that L ozano is ex empt from the RO, other Plaintiffs would still have sta

nding to c halleng e that ordina nce, a nd we there fo rewo uld

sti ll h avejurisdic tio n toreview i t.

51 R O i mpo s e o n t h e m. Th u s , e v e n i f we a g r e e d wi t h al l of H azl et on’ s ar gum ent s t hus far , w e w oul d s t i l l concl ude t hat L ozano and E s pi nal have st andi ng. T he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of th e IIR A O a n d th e R O re g u late th e a b ili tyo f lan d lo rd s to
c o n tra c t w ith c e rta in p e rso n s. T h e yre q u ire lan d lo rd s to e x p lain t he o rdi nan ces t o all prospecti ve rent ers and to exam i ne those
r ent er s ’ occupa ncyper m i t s . M or e gene r al ly , t heycompel l a n d lo rd s to a c t a s lo c a l e n f o rc e rs o f im m ig ra tio n la w in w a ys t hatfarexce ed thei robl i gat i ons underfede r al l aw . C om pl i ance
w i t h t hese requi rem ents el evates t he cost of do i ng bu si ness as a l andl or d, and thatal one gi ves t hem A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng. 16Hazleton does not extend this argument to J ohn Doe 1, 17 which is wise sinceJ ohn Doe 1 wa s evicted by his landlord beca use of theseordinanc es. SeeJ .A. 831-32. Hazleton does challeng e John Doe 1' s standing, how ever , based on its contention th at Jo hnD o e1 is la

w f u lly p r e s e nt inth is c o untr

y . Wer e c o gn iz e th atth e r ec o rdco nt ai n s co n fl i ct i n g t es t i m o ny as t o J o hnDo e 1 's imm igratio n s tatus . O n th eon eha nd , John D oe1 te sti fi e d th at hi s fathe r, a United States citiz en, submitted a “pe tition” to make J ohn Doe 1 a “leg al re sident,” and that the United States g overnme nt approve d that petition. J .A. 808-09. On theother ha nd, J ohn Doe 1 testified that he is unsureof his immigration status and his work authorization, that he believe s he is remova ble, and that heis “not hereleg ally .” SeeJ .A. 809-10, 832. We there forecannot c onclude (continued...) 52 b . T en a n t P laintiff

s B eca us e “[ t ] h e l o s s ( ori m m i nentl os s ) of one’ s apart m ent and the i nabi l i tyt o r enta new one i s cert ai nl yan ac tual and
concr et e i nj ur y , ” ca us ed byt he or di nance s and
r edr essab le byt he court , t he di s t r i ctcour tconcl uded thatt he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs , w ho l ack l aw ful im m igr at i on s t atus , al s o have
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of the I I R A O and th e R O
. Lozano , 4 9 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 4 9 7 -9 8
. H a z leto n f

irst a rg u e s t h a t th e d istric t co u rt e rre d in fi ndi ng t hatJ ohn D oes 3 and 7 and J ane D oe 5 fa ce i m m i nent in ju ry . A c c o rd in g to H a z leto n , th e ir f e a rs o f e v ictio n a re m e re ly conj ectur al beca use “none of t hem have been e vi ct ed orhave
r ece i ved anyt hr eatorw arni ng t hat t heym i ghtbe evi ct ed i n t he futur e. ” H azl et on’ s B r . 20. W e ar e ent i r el yunconvi nced.

17(...continued) 17 that the district court’s f

indings a s to the leg itimacy of his fea rs were cle arly

erroneous. Reg ardle ss of J ohn Doe 1' s prec ise leg al status, we think that he has e stablished standing . He ha s been evicted be causeof the ordina nces, a nd his own understandingof – and his ability

to prove – his status is sufficiently uncer tain that he is quite likely

to suffer further injury if the ordinanc es are enf

orce d. 53 T h e se P lain tiff

s all tes tifie d th a t th e y f e a re d lo sin g th e ir
a p a rt m e n ts a n d h a v in g t o m o v e e ls e w h e re . See J
. A
. 888, 929, 951. H azl et on ci t es J ohn D oe 3' s t es t i m onyt hathe di d not expec tt o be evi ct ed bec aus e hi s l andl or d “does n’ tcar e much about ” the or di nance s , J. A
. 888, as evi dence t hathe fa ces no im m in e n t in

ju ry . H o w e v e r, H a z leto n m isc o n stru e s th is t es t i m ony . J ohn D oe 3 l at erexpl ai ned thathe had be en t ol d by hi s l andl o rd’s agentt hathi s l andl or d di d notexpec tt he
or di nance s t o evergo i nt o eff ect , and for t hat r eas on, J ohn D oe 3 h a d b e e n u n c o n c e rn e d
. See J
. A
. 889- 90. H e al s o t es t i fi ed that h e h a s n o re a so n to b e liev e th a t h is la n d lo rd w o u ld n o t co m p ly
w i t h t he or di nance s i f theyar e en fo rced. J
. A
. 889- 90. G i ven t he har s h s anct i ons t he I I R A O and the R O w oul d i m pos e on any l andl or d w ho r ent ed t o hi m ort he o ther D oe Pl ai nt i ffs , s uch f e a rs a re p lain lyw e ll-fo u n d e d
. T h e p o ss ib ili tyo f e v ictio n is th e re f o re m u c h m o re th a n “ c o n jec tu r e .” A p lain tiff

n e e d o n ly sh o w “ a re a listic d a n g e r o f su sta in in g a d ire c t in ju ry a s a re su lt54 of t he s t atut e’ s o p e r a t i on orenfor cement , ” and the D oe Pl ai nt i ffs
c le a rl y d o s o . B abbi t t v. U ni t ed Far m W

or ker s N at ’ lU ni on , 442 U
. S
. 2 8 9 , 2 9 8 (19 7 9 ). H azl et on al s o r ai s es her e the conve r s e of i t s ar gum ent abo ve: i tcon t end s that the D oe P l ai nti ffs l ack st and i ng becau se t heir cl ai m ed i njur i es w ou l d be caused byt hir d-partyl and l ords, and nott he or di nance s . T hi s ver ges on t he r i di cul ous . J us tas H azl et on’ s or di nance s compel t enant s not t o r ent fr om Pl ai nt i ff l and l ords, t heycom pel l and l ords not t o rent t o P l ai nti ff t enan t s. T h e D o e P la in ti f

f s’ f e a rs th a t th e ir lan d lo rd s w ill n o t re n t to t h e m –b e c a u s e t h e I I RA O a n d t h e RO r equi r e t hos e l andl or ds notr entt o t hem – ar e ce r t ai nl y“fa i r l yt r ace abl e” t o t he ordi nan ce s. A dd i t i on al l y , as H azl et on w el l kn ow s, t hese
o rd in a n c e s d ire c tly re g u late ten a n ts as w e ll, a n d th e re f o re w o u ld i nj ur e t he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs r egar dl es s of thei rl andl or ds ’ r eac t i ons t o them
. T he II R A O and t he R O w ou l d inval i date theirl eases, and w oul d r equi r e them t o paya fe e and pr ovi de document at i on (w h ich th e ylac k ) in o rd e r to c o n tin u e re n tin g a p a rtm e n ts in H az let o n . T h ese injuries ea sil ysati sfyA rt icl e III. F in a lly , H a z leto n a rg u e s th a t th e D o e P lain tiff s f a il t o
e s t a b l i s h r e d r e s s a b i l i t y b e c a u s e , e v e n i f t h i s Co u r ts t ru c k d o wn55 th e o r d in a n c e s, th e D o e P lain tiff s w o u ld still b e su b

jec t to
r e mov a l
. Acc o r d i n g t o Haz l e t o n , t h i s Cou r t c a n n o t g r a n t “a
r e m e d yth a t ta k e s th e D o e [ P ]l a in tif f s o u t o f le g a l je o p a rd y. T h e yw ill s till b e in v io latio n o f f e d e ra l law a n d su b

jec t to
r emoval
. ” H azl et on’ s B r . 21. H azl et o n gr eat l yover s t at es t he demands of thi s el ement of cons t i tut i onal s t andi ng. A s th e S u p re m e C o u rt e x p la in e d in L a rs o n v . V a len te , 456 U
. S. 2 2 8 , 243 n. 15 ( 1982) , “a pl ai nt i ff s at i s fi es t he
re d re ss a b ili tyre q u ire m e n t w h e n h e sh o w s th a t a f a v o ra b le deci s i on w il l r el i eve a di s cr et e i nj ur yt o hi m s el f. H e nee d not show t hat a favorable de c isio n w i l l rel i eve h i s every in ju ry.” R e d re ss a b ili ty th e re f

o re d o e s n o t re q u ire th a t a c o u rt b e a b le to
so lv e a ll o f

a p lain tiff ’s w o e s. R a th e r, w e n e e d o n ly b e a b le to
re d re ss , to s o m e e x ten t, th e sp e c if ic in ju ryu n d e rly in g th e su it. S e e Ma s s . v . EPA , 5 4 9 U
. S. 497, 526 ( 2007) ( hol di ng t hat
re d re ss a b ili ty p ro n g w a s s a tisf ied b e c a u se risk o f

g lo b a l clim a te ch an g e w o u ld b e re d u ce d “to s o m e e x tent” b yreli ef req u ested ). B yper m anent l yenj oi ni ng enfor cementof the hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of t he I I R A O and the R O , thi s cour tcan pr ovi de
m eani ngful r edr es s fort he i nj ur yt he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs as s er t . Such
re lief w o u ld su b sta n tially d e c re a se th e lik e lih o o d th a t th e yw ill56 be evi ct ed and/ orunabl e t o pr ocur e r ent al hous i ng w hi l e they
re m a in in th e U n ited S tate s. T h a t is m o re th a n s u f f icie n t to
es t abl i s h s t andi ng. B eca us e Lozano, H H B A m ember E s pi nal , and the D oe Pl ai nt i ffs w i l l s uffe ri nj ur ycaus ed byt he or d inan ces a nd red ressa b le by the c o u rt , w e co n clud e th at they h av e A rt icl e III
s t andi ng t o chal l enge the hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of the I I R A O and t h e RO
. C . P rudent i al St andi ng E ven w h en a pl ai nt i ff s at i s fi es A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng
r equi r e me n t s , f

e d e r a l c our t s m aynonethel es s decl i ne t o cons i der t hatpl ai nt i ff’ s cl ai m s for prudent i al r eas ons . H azl et on cont ends t hat t her e ar e tw o prudent i al cons i der at i ons w hi ch couns el
re s tr a in t h e re . H azl et on fi r s t ar gues t hat Pl ai nt i ffs l ack prudent i al st and i ng becau se t hey do no tfal l w i t hin the “zo ne o f i nter est s” pr ot ect ed byfede r al i m m i gr at i on l aw . H azleton mi s s t at es t he
a p p lica b le z o n e o f in ter e sts in q u iry in th e p re -e m p tio n c o n tex t. T he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned thata pl ai nt i ff may b rin g su it o n lyw h e n th e in ter e sts s/h e a ss e rts a re “ a rg u a b ly
w i t hi n t he zone of i nt er es t s t o be pr ot ect ed orr egul at ed byt he57 s t atut e or cons t i tut i onal guar ant ee i n ques t i on. ” A ss ’n o f D a ta P r o c e s s i n g S e r v . Or

gs . , I n c . v . Ca mp , 3 9 7 U
. S
. 1 5 0 , 1 5 3 (19 7 0 ). T hi s l i m i t at i on on st andi ng ar os e i n s ui t s chal l engi ng agenc y
a c tio n u n d e r t h e A d m in is tr a tiv e P ro c e d u re A c t ( “ A P A ” ), 5 U .S .C . § 7 0 2 , b u t h a s s in c e b e e n e m p lo y e d m o re b ro a d ly. See Be n n e t t v . Spear , 520 U
. S. 154, 163 ( 1997) ( T he “z one- ofi nt er es t s t es t [w as fi r s t appl i ed] t o s ui t s under t he A PA , butl at er
cas es have a ppl i ed i tal s o i n s ui t s noti nvol vi ng r evi ew of fe der al admi ni s t r at i ve act i on and have s peci fi cal l y l i s t ed i tamong ot her prudent i al s t andi ng r equi r ement s of gene r al appl i cati on. ”) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)
. H ow ever , out s i de of t he admi nis t r at i ve l aw cont ext , t he t es tm ayhave di ffe r ent p e rm u ta tio n s , s ee C o n te B r os . A ut o. , I nc. v. Q uakerSt at e- Sl i ck 50, I nc. , 165 F. 3d 221, 226 ( 3d C i r . 1998) , and “t he br eadth of t he zone of i nt er es t s [w i l l vary ] acc or di ng t o t he pr ovi s i ons of l aw ati s s ue, ” B e n n e tt , 520 U
. S. at163. T hus , i n t he pr e- empt i on cont ext , w e have expl ai ned that th e re lev a n t p ru d e n tial in q u iryis n ot w h e th er a p lai n ti ff ’s i nt er es t s fal l w i t hi n t he zo n e p r ot ect ed byt he al l egedl ypr ee mp t i n g f

e d e r a l p r o v i s i o n , i n t h i s c a s e , f e d e r a l i mm i g r a t i o n l a w. I n St
. Thom as - St
. John H ot el & Tour is m A s s ’ n v. V i r gi n I s l ands ,58 218 F. 3d 232 ( 3d C i r . 2000) , s ever al em p l oy eror gani zat i ons br oughts ui tt o enj oi n a V i r gi n I s l ands l aw es tablishi ng t hat empl oy e e s c o u l d o n l yb e t e r mi n a t e d f o rc a u s e . Th e p l a i n t i ffs al l eged thatt hi s l aw w as pr e- empt ed byt he N at i onal L abor R e latio n s A c t (“ N L R A ” ), 2 9 U .S .C . § § 1 5 1
- 1 6 9 . O n a p p e a l, d e f e n d a n ts a rg u e d th a t p lain tiff s la c k e d p ru d e n tial sta n d in g to i nvoke th e p r e - e mpt i v e e f f e c to f t h e NLR A, b e c a u s e t he N L R A ’s zon e of int eres t s di d n ot encom pass em ploy ers ’ i nt er es t s i n t er m i nat i ng t hei rempl oy ees . W e agr eed w i t h t he defe nd ants ’ char act eriz a t i on of the N L R A ’s zon e of int eres t s, b u tf o u n d t h i s n o b a rt o e m p l o y e r s ’ p ru d e n t i a l s t a n d i n g . We
e x p lain e d : W e know of no governi ng author i t y t o t he ef fec t t hatt he fe der al s t atut or ypr ov isi on w hi ch al l egedl y pr eempt s enfor cement of l ocal l egi s l at i on byconfl ict m us tconfe ra r i ghton t he par t yt hatar gues i n favorof pr eempt i on. O n t he contr ary , a s t at e ort err i t ori al l aw can be unenfor cea bl e as pr eempt ed byfede r al l aw even w h en t he fe der al l aw s ecur es no i ndi vi dual s u b s t a n t i v e r i g h t s f

or t he par t y ar gui ng p re e m p tio n . I d. a t 2 4 1
. Pr e- empt i on s ui t s ar i s e undert he Supr emacy C l aus e and vi ndi cat e the i nt er es t s of thatC l aus e, nott he i nt er es t s of the pr e-59 empt i ng fede r al pr ovi s i on. T her efor e, t he ap p r o p r i a t e p ru d e n t i al i nqui r y i n pr e- empt i on cas es ( i f any s uch i nqui r y i s nece s s aryat al l ) m us tbe w hethert he pl ai nt i ff’ s i nt er es t s fal l w i t hi n t he zone p ro te c te d b y th e S u p re m a c y C la u s e its e lf
. See, e. g. , W i lderness S o c ’y v . Ka n e C n ty . , 581 F. 3d 1198, 1217 n. 11 ( 10t h C i r . 2009) ( decl i ni ng t o deci de i f zone of i nt er es t s t es tappl i es i n pr eempt i on cas es , butemphasi zi ng t hati f i tdoes, “the r el evant zone of i nt er es ti s t hatof the Supr emacyC l aus e and notof the
a lleg e dly preem pti ng fede ral st atute”); P ha rm . R esearch & M f rs.
v. C oncannon , 249 F. 3d 66, 73 ( 1s tC i r . 2001) ( I n a pr e- empt i on
cas e, “i ti s t he i nt er es t s pr ot ect ed by t he Supr emacy C l aus e, not byt he p reem pti ng st atute, t hat ar e ati ssue. ”). T hese i nterest s,
w hi ch are no l es s t han ours oci ety ’ s i nt er es ti n a w or ki ng f e d e r a lism , are so c ieta l, no t in d iv id u a l. A c c o rd in g ly , all Pl ai nt i ffs fal l w i t hi n t hei rbr eadth, and have prudent i al s t andi ng her e. Haz l e t o n a l s o a r g u e s t h a t we s h o u l d , a s a ma t t er of pruden t i al st and i ng , refuse t o ad j ud i cat e t he D oe P l ai nti ffs’ cl ai m s beca us e t heyconce de thatt heyl ack l aw ful i m m i gr at i on
s t atus . H azl et on r el i es on N at i onal C oal i t i on of Lat i no C l er gy, Inc. v. H enry , N o. 07- C V
- 613, 2007 W L 4390650 ( N
. D
. O kl a.As a g eneral rule, w e do not consider arguments arising 18 out of unpublished decisions, and do so he re solely for the purposes of puttingto bed Hazleton’s argument, which wefind p art i cu l ar l y

tro u b l i n g. 60 D ec. 12, 2 0 0 7 ), t he unpubl i s hed dec i s i on of a l one fe der al di s t r i ctcour tas s uppor tfori t s cont ent i on. 18 I n Henry , t he D i s t r i ct C our tforthe N or t hern D i s t r i ctof O kl ahoma cons i der ed cha l l enges t o t he Okl a h o ma Ta xpay erand Ci t i z e n P r o t e c t i o n Ac t o f 2 0 0 7 , a l a w wh i c h mi r r o r s t h e I I RA O i n s ever al r es pect s ( and w hi ch, i n s ubs equent l y - fi l ed l i t i gat i on, C ham ber of

C om m er ce v . E dm onds on, 5 9 4 F
. 3 d 7 4 2 (10 th C ir
. 2010) , w as pr el i m i nar i l yenj oi ned i n par t )
. T he courtconcl uded t hatt hos e pl ai nt i ffs l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus had A r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng, butnonethel es s hel d t hati tw oul d not
cons i dert hei rcl ai m s fo r p rudent i al r eas ons . E xpl ai ni ng t hat
cour t s have tr adi t iona l l yr efus ed t o ent er t ai n cas es br oughtby pl ai nt i ffs w i t h “uncl ean ha nds , ” i tr eas o n e d thatt he “i l l egal al i en P lain tiff s se e k n o th in g m o re th a n to u se th is C o u rt a s a v e h icle forthei r cont i nued unl aw ful pr es ence i n t hi s countr y . ” I d. , at *9. T o all o w the m t o do s o, t he courtconcl uded, w oul d m ake it a n “ a b e tte r o f

in i q u i t y,” a re s u lt it f

o u n d “ u n p a la ta b le .” I

d. T he courtt hus ad o p ted “a new , and narr ow , prudent i al61 l i m i t at i on” on s t andi ng: [a] n i l l egal al i en, i n w i l l ful v i ol at i on of fe der al i m m i gr at i on l aw , i s w i t houts t andi ng t o chal l enge t he cons t i tut i onal i t yof a s t at e law , w hen compl i ance w i t h fede r al l aw w oul d abs ol ve the i l l egal al i en’s co n sti tuti onal di l emm a – par t i cul ar l yw hen the chal le nged s t at e l aw w as enac t ed t o di s co u rage vi ol at i on of the fe der al i mm i g r a t i o n l a w. I d. H az let o n arg u es th at, fo r th e re aso n s arti cu lat ed i n H enry , w e “ to o m u st p ru d e n tiallyd e c lin e to tak e ju risd ictio n w ith
re s p e c t to th e D o e A p p e lle e s . ” H a z le to n ’s B r. 1 9
. Hen ry’s in v e n ted b a r to ju d icia l a c c e ss is e n tirelyim p ro p e r, an d w e w ill notacc eptH azl et on’ s i nvi t at i on t o dupl i cat e thaterr orher e. T he Henry d e c isio n , b o th in su b sta n c e a n d to n e , fa ils to appr eciate t h at w h atev er a p erso n ’s i m m igrati o n statu s, “a n al i en i s sur el y a ‘per son’” enti t l ed t o D ue Process C l ause protect i on s. P l yl er , 4 5 7 U .S . at 2 1 0 ; se e a lso W o lff v . M c D o n n e ll , 41 8 U. S. 5 3 9 , 5 7 9 (1 9 7 4 ) ( “ T h e rig h t o f a c c e ss to th e c o u rts . . . is founded i n t he D ue Pr oces s C laus e an d as s ur es t hatno per s on
w il l be d en ied th e o p p o rt u n ityto p rese n t t o the ju d ici ary al l egat i ons conce r ni ng vi ol at i ons of funda m ent al cons t i tut i onal
r i ght s . ”)
. T he Supr eme C our tt her efor e has cert ai nl ycons i der ed62 j udi ci al ch al l enges br oughtbyper s ons l acki ng l aw ful im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s , s ee, e. g. , P l yl er , even w hen “c om pl i ance
w it h feder al l aw ” w oul d have a bs ol ved “the i l l egal al i en’s
cons t i tut i onal di l emm a, ” Henry , 2 0 0 7 W L 4 3 9 0 6 5 0 , a t * 9
. Henry defe nds i t s rul e by cl ai m i ng t hat i t w oul d notdeny p ers ons w i t houtl aw ful s t atus a ll a c c e s s t o t h e c o u r t s , a s t hey
w ou l d ret ai n p rudenti al st and i ng t o sue f or harm s unrelat ed to t he i rs t a tus . Butt hi s c a ve a ta s s ur e s l i t t l e . A s t hi s case demonst rat es , al l i tt akes fora harm t o become “r el at ed t o” a p e rso n ’s im m ig ra tio n sta tu s is f o r so m e le g isla tiv e b o d yto decr ee i ts o. T he s cope of t hes e al i ens ’ r i ght s w oul d t her efor e,
u n d er Hen ry’s r eas oni ng, be ent i r el ydepende n t o n the w i l l of
s t at e and l ocal l egi s l atur es , w hi ch coul d t i e anycons equenc e of t h e i rc h o o s i n g t o u n l a wf u l s t a tu s a n d n e v e r f

a c e j u d i c i a l r e v i e w. T he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs s at i s fyA r t i cl e I I I s t andi ng
r equi rem ent s , and the prudent i al s t andi ng r equi r ement s of g e n e ra l ap p lica b ili tyse t f o r th b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt. A cc o rdin g ly , w e w il l add ress the irclaim s. H o w ev er, tw o m o re p re lim in a ry is s u e s m u s t b e re s o lv e d b e f o re w e d o s o . V. ANO NYM I TY AND CO NFI DENTI ALI TY H azl et on ar gues t hat t he di s t r i ct cour t err ed i n per m i t t i ng63 t hos e Pl ai nt i ffs l acki ng l aw ful i m m igr at i on s t atus t o pr ocee d
us i ng a “J ohn D oe” or“J ane D oe” ps eudonym . W e di s agr ee. I n C
. A
. R
. S. P r ot ect i on P l us , w e expl ai ned thatal t hough “the us e of ps eudonym s t o conce al a pl ai nt i ff’ s i dent i t yhas no expl i ci ts anct i on i n t he fe der al rul es,” the Supr eme C our thas “gi ven the pr act i ce i m pl i ci t r ecogni t i on. ” 527 F. 3d at371 n. 2. We t h u s c o n c l u d e d t h a t“ t h e d e c i s i o n wh e t h e rt o a l l o w a pl ai nt i ff t o pr ocee d anonym o us l yr es t s w i t hi n t he s ound di s cr et i on of the court . ” I d. In d e c id in g w h e th e r to p e rm it th o se P la in tiff s w ith
c o n c e rn s a b o u t th e leg a lityo f th e ir im m ig ra tio n sta tu s to pr ocee d anonym ous l y , t he di s t r i ctcour ts ur vey ed ca s e l aw
w ith in th is C irc u it an d id e n tifie d n in e se p a ra te f a c to rs c o u rts h a v e u s e d to d e c id e w h e th e r a n o n ym ity is a p p ro p ri a te . See Lozano , 4 9 6 F. Su p p . 2 d a t 5 0 6
. Th e c o u r t t h e n engage d i n a t hor ough anal y s i s of ea ch of thes e fa ct or s , and conc l uded that t he fa ct or s favor i ng anony m ityout w ei ghed thos e fa vor i ng di s cl os ur e. Speci fi cal l y , t he courtfound that ethni c t ens i ons had
es cal at ed i n H azl et on s i nce e nactm entof the or di nances , and t hatt he named Pl ai nt i ffs had bee n har as s ed and i nt i m i dat ed forL ozano , f or e xamp le , te sti fi e d th at ha temail w a s sent t o 19 his home three separate times. One letter “contained a c lipping from a newspape r desc ribingthe [alleg ed] effe cts of illeg al i mm i grat i o nas we l las a p i cture o f a‘w arri o r’ we ar i n g ‘ahu ge Me xica n h at.’ Sc ra

wl e d n e ar t

his pic turewerethephra se s, ‘[s] ubhuman spic scum’ a nd ‘[i] f it is brown, flush it down.’” Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at 510 (alterations in orig inal) (inter nal quotation marks and c itation omitted). This letter also contained a link to a website proc laiming itself “ the Off icial Home Pag e of the National Socialist Movement, an org anization dedicated to the preservation of our

Proud Aryan Heritag e, and thecre ation of a National Socialist Society in America

and around the world.” Id. at 510 n.34 (internal quotation marks omitted). The district cour t noted that this sort of hara ssment ext ended even to people who wereme re ly

pe rc e ive d a s b e ingc onne c te d to thelaws uit , e ve n if this perception was not rooted in fa ct. Amilcar Arroyo, a United S t at es ci t i z enwh o p u

b l i s h es a H az l et o n -b as edS p an i s h -l an gu age ne ws pa pe r, wa s p ub lic a lly

ha ra sse d whe n h etrie d to c ov e r a rally in s up po rt

of theordin anc e s. B a se d o n a rumor that hewa s a plaintif f in th is s uit , ra lly

pa rtic ipa nts g athere d a

ro un d h im shouting, “ g et out of the c ountry” and “ traitor.” Id. at 510 (internal qu otatio n ma

rk s o mitte d) . Po lic ee sc or te d Arroyo f

ro m th erally for his own prote ction. Id. 64 t hei ri nv o lvem enti n t hi s l i t i gat i on. See i d. at508- 10. T he 19
c o u rt c o n c lu d e d th a t th e D o e P lain tiff s, b e c a u se o f

th e ir unl aw ful s t atus , w ould fa ce an “e xponent i al l ygr eat er ” r i s k of h ara ssm en t, an d ev en p h y sical d a n g e r, if t h eir i d en ti ti es w ere
re v e a le d
. Id
. at 510. T he cour t al s o not ed thatt he l i t i gat i on w as i n t he publ i c i nt er es t , and r eas oned thatt he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs , as
w el l as pr os pect i ve l i t i gant s l acki ng l aw ful sta tus , w oul d be d e ter re d f

ro m b rin g in g c a se s c lar if y in g c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts, if d o in g so re q u ire d a ler tin g f e d e ra l im m ig ra tio n a u th o rities to th e irp re s e n c e . See i d. at511- 12. Fi nal l y , t he courtexpl ai ned65 t hatbeca us e the D oe Pl ai nt i ffs ’ i d en t i t yi nfor m at i on w as not centr al t o t h eir c l ai m s , r es t r i ct i ng H azl et on’ s acc es s t o t hat in f o rm a tio n w o u ld n o t b e p re ju d ic ia l. See i d. at513. W e agr ee
w i t h eac h of t hes e conc l us i ons , and thi nk i tcl eart hatgi ven the
env i ronm ent i n H azl et on foll ow i ng enactm ent of t hese
or di nances, the cour tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n per m i t t i ng th e D o e P la in tif

f s to p ro c e e d u s in g p s e u d o n ym s . R elated ly , H az let o n also ar g u e s that the d istri ct co u rt vi ol at ed 8 U
. S. C
. § 1373( a) by ent er i ng an or derpr ohi bi t i ng t he p arti es f rom d iscl o sing “inf

o rm ati o n o b tai n ed d u ri n g d isco v ery
r egar di ng t he J ohn and J ane D oe pl ai nt i ffs
. ” J
. A
. 211. Sect i on 13 73 (a) provides: N o tw ith sta n d in g a n yo th e r p ro v isio n o f F e d e ra l, St at e, orl ocal l aw , a Feder al , St at e, orl ocal governm entent i t yoroffi ci al m ay not pr ohi bi t , or i n anyw ayr es t r i ct , anygovernm entent i tyor offi ci al fr om s endi ng t o, orr ece i vi n g fr om , t he I m m i gr at i on and Na t u r a l i zat i on Ser vi ce i nform ati o n reg ard ing t he ci t i zens hi p or i m m i gr at i on s t atus , l aw ful orunl aw ful , of any in d iv id u a l. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1373( a)
. H azl et on ar gues t hatbeca us e the di s t r i ct
cour ti s an ent i t yof t he fe der al governm ent , i tw as pr ohi bi t ed byt hi s s ect i on fr om pr event i ng H azl et on fr om comm uni cat i ng
w i t h fede r al i m m i gr at i on author i t i es about “t he ci t i zens hi p or66 i m m i grat i on st atus” of

t he D oe P l ai nti ffs. A lt h o u gh w e ar e notconvi nced that§ 1373( a) does , or
co u l d , l i mi tt h e i n h e r e n tp o wer s o f f e d e r a l c o u r t s i n t h e w ay H azl et on sugg est s, w e n e e d n o treach this qu est i on becau se H azl et on’ s ar gum entfai l s fora m or e funda m ent al r eas on. U n d e r th e c o n f

id e n tialitya g re e m e n t th e p a rties e v e n tu a lly ent er ed i nt o, t he D oe Pl ai nt i ffs agr eed t o r evea l t hei ri dent i t i es
o n ly to H a z le to n ’s a tto rn e y s , a n d n o t to H a z le to n o f f ic ia ls
. See J. A
. 69 2-707
. C on sequen t l y , H azl et on nev er l earned these Pl ai nt i ffs’ ide nt i t i es ort hei ri m m i gr at i on s t atus . T he di s t r i ct
cour t si m pl ycoul d nothave pr ohi bi t ed H azl et on fr om
comm uni cat i ng w i t h t he fede r al governm entabouti nfor m at i on t h a tHa z l e t o n n e v e rk n e w.

VI . DI S CU S S I ON H a v in g re so lv e d th e se p re lim in a ryiss u e s, w e c a n tu rn to t he mer i t s of t he cl ai m s befor e us . A lt h ough ourr eas oni ng di ffe r s fr om t hatof the di s t r i ctcour t , w e ag ree t hatt he p ro v isio n s o f

th e o rd in a n c e s w h ich w e h a v e ju risd ictio n to
r evi ew ar e pr e- empt ed byfede r al i m m i gr at i on l aw and
un con st i tuti on al un der t he S up rem acyC l ause . B eca us e that concl us i on tur ns on t he r el at i ons hi p betw een the or di nance s and67 fede r al i m m i gr at i on l aw , w e begi n our i nqui r y i nt o t he m er i t s of t h i s a p p e a l b yb r i e f

l yl a y i n g o u tt h e p a r a me t e r s o f t h a tl a w. A . F ederalI m m i grat i on L aw 1. T he I m m i grat i on and N at i onal i t y A ct T h e p rim a ryb o d yo f f e d e ra l im m ig r a tio n law is
c o n ta in e d in t h e Im m ig ra tio n a n d N a tio n a lity A c t ( “ IN A ” ), 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1101- 537 , enac t ed i n 1952, and amended manyt i m es th ere af ter. T h e IN A sets fo rth the c ri teri a b yw h ich “ ali en s,” defi ned as “any per s on not a ci t i zen or a nat i onal of the U ni t ed S tate s, ” 8 U .S .C . § 1 1 0 1 (a )(3 ), m a ye n ter , v isit, an d re sid e in t h i s c o u n t r y. U n d e r t h e I NA , t h e r e a r e t h r e e p r i ma r y c a t e g o r i e s of al ie ns w ho m ayl aw ful l yent erand/ ors pend t i m e w i t hi n t he U ni t ed St at es : ( 1) “noni m m i gr ant s , ” w ho ar e per s ons admi t t ed fora l i m i t ed purpos e and f ora l i m i t ed amount of t i m e, s uch as
v isi tors fo r plea su re, stu d en ts, d iplom ats, an d tem p o rary
w o rk e rs , s ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 1 0 1 (a)(15 ); (2) “im m igran ts, ” w h o are per s o n s a d mi t t e d a s ( o ra f t e ra d mi s s i o n , b e c o me ) l a wful p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n ts o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s b a s e d o n , in tera lia , f a m ily, e m p lo ym e n t, o r d iv e rs ity c h a ra c te ri s tic s , s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1151; and ( 3) “r efuge es ” and “ as y l ees , ” w ho ar e per s onsCongress has also ratified tre aties pursua nt to which 20 persons may

be admitted on humanitarian grounds even if they do not satisfy

the statutory

definition of “refug ee”set forth in the I NA. See Un ite d N atio ns Conve nti on Ag a ins t T or

tureand Othe r C ru e l, Inhuman or De gradingTreatment or Punishment, art. 3, Apr. 18, 1988, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85. 68 admi t t ed t o and perm i t t ed t o s t ayfo r so m e t i m e i n t he U ni t ed S ta te s b e c a u s e o f

h u m a n ita ri a n c o n c e rn s , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1157- 58. A l i ens w i s hi ng t o be l egal l yad m it ted i nt o t he U ni t ed 20 S t at es m ustsat i sfyspeci fi c el i g ib ili tycri t eri a i n o ne o f t hese cat egor i es , and al s o notbe barr ed byot herpr ovi s i ons of fe der al l aw t hatdet er m i ne i nadmissi bi l i t y . C ongr es s has det er m i ned th a t n o n -c itiz e n s w h o , in tera lia , hav e cert ai n h eal t h co nd i t i on s, hav e been con vict e d o f c e rt a i n c r i mes, presentsecuri t ycon cerns,
o r ha v e b ee n rec en tl yrem o v ed fro m th e U n it ed S tat es, are in a d m is s ib le , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1182, and i f detai ned w hen
a ttem p tin g to e n ter o r re e n ter th e c o u n tr y , m a yb e su b jec t to
e x p e d ite d re m o v a l, s ee 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 5
. D esp it e the ca ref

u ll yd esig n ed sy stem fo r l aw fu l entry d esc ri b ed ab o v e, p erso n s lack ing law fu l im m igrati o n statu s are
o b v i o u s l ys t i l l p r e s e nti n t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s . As t h e S u p r e me C our t expl ai ned al m os tt hi r t yy ear s ago: “[s ] heeri ncapa bi l i t yor la x e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th e la w s b a rr in g e n tr yin to t h i s c o u n tr y. . .Prior to 2003, the Immigration and Naturaliz ation Service 21 (“I NS”), whic h operated under the Depa rtment of Just ice, administrated both immigration services a nd immigration enforceme nt. On Marc h 1, 2003, Congress abolished the I NS. Pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L . No. 107- 296, 11 6 St at. 2 13 5, tha

t a g e nc y ’s fu

nc tio ns weretr ans ferre d to threeseparate ag encie s within the newly cre ated Department of Homeland Security : U.S. Ci tiz enship and Immigration Services (“U SCI S”), which perfor

ms imm igration and naturalization service s, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforc ement (“ I CE”), wh ic h e nf orc e s f e de ral immigra

tio n a nd c us tom s la

ws , a nd U. S. Customs and B order

Protection (“CB P”), which monitors and se c ure s th ec ountr

y ’s bo rd e rs . O lder doc uments may c ontin ueto ref er to the pre-2003 administrative struc ture, a nd citations to them sh ou ld b eun de rs too d in

tha t c onte xt. 69 has r es ul t ed i n t he cr eat i on of a s ubs t ant i al ‘ s hadow popul at i on’

. . . w i t hi n ourbor der s . ” P l yl er , 457 U
. S. at218. Such per s ons
m ayl ack l aw ful s t atus beca us e theyent er ed the U ni t ed St at es i l l egal l y , eit herbyfai l i ng t o r egi s t erw i t h i m m i gr at i on author i t i es or by fai l i ng t o di s cl os e i nfor m at i on t hat w oul d have
re n d e re d th e m in a d m is s ib le w h e n th e ye n te re d
. See 8 U .S .C . § 12 27
. In addit i on , al i ens w ho enter ed legal l ym ayt hereaft er l ose l a wfu l s t a tu s , e i t h e r b y f a i l i n g t o a d h e r e t o a c o n d i t i o n of
a d m iss io n , o r b yc o m m itt in g p ro h ib ited a c ts (s u c h a s c e rta in
c ri m in a l o f

f e n s e s ) a f te r b e in g a d m itte d
. See i d. Per s ons her e unl aw ful l y ar e s ubj ect t o r emoval fr om t he countr y . R emoval pr ocee di ngs ar e i ni t i at ed att he di s cr et i on of the D ep artm en t of

H o m elan d S ec u ri ty(“D H S ”). See J uar ezv. 21As noted above , inadmissible aliens detained at the 22 border s of the United States, or others dee med not to have be en “admitted” to the c ountry , may be subjec t to expedited re moval. See8 U.S.C. § 1225. In addition, expedited removal proc edure s apply to cer tain aliens alre ady

within the country

who havebeen c onvic te d o f c on gre ssi on a lly-d e fine d c ri me s. See8 U.S.C. § 1228. 70 H older , 5 9 9 F
. 3d 560, 566 ( 7t h C i r . 2010) ( “[T] he dec i s i on
w hen t o i ni t i at e r emoval pr ocee di ngs i s comm i t t ed to the di s cr et i on of i m m i gr at i on author i t i es . ” ( ci t i ng R eno v. A m . -A r ab A n t i
- Dis c r i mi n a t i o n Co mm. , 5 2 5 U
. S
. 4 7 1 , 4 8 9 (19 9 9 )))
. A l t hough cert ai n al i ens are s ubj ectt o m or e expe di t ed r emoval p ro c e e d in g s, f

o r a ll o th e rs, se c tio n 2 4 0 o f th e IN A se ts f o rth 22 t he “s ol e and e xcl us i ve pr ocedur e fordet erm i ni ng w hetheran al ien m ay be admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es or , i f the al i en has b e e n s o a d m itte d , re m o v e d f ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 a (a )( 3 ). U n d e r se c tio n 2 4 0 , a n a lien f a c in g re m o v a l is e n tit led to a hea r i ng befor e an i m m i gr at i on j u d ge and i s pr ovi ded numer ous pr ocedur al pr ot ect i ons dur i ng t hathear i ng, i ncl udi ng not i ce, t he oppor tuni t yt o pr es entand exa m i ne evi dence , and t he
o p p o rtu n ityto b e rep rese n ted b yco u n sel (at th e a li en ’s
e x p e n s e ). See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1229a. A t t he concl us i on of a r emoval hear i ng, t he pr es i di ng i m m i gr at i on j udge m us tdeci de, bas ed onIn Zadvydas , the Court addre ssed the ca ses of two aliens 23 who had be en ordered removed f rom the United States, but who, for va rious rea sons, no other country would acc ept. The g overnme nt sought to continue de taining the m nonetheless. The (continued...) 71 th e e v id e n c e p ro d u c e d d u rin g th e h e a rin g , w h e th e r th e a lien is
re m o v a b le , s ee 8 U
. S.C
. § 1229a( c) ( 1) ( A ) , and i f s o, w hether
s / he s houl d be or der ed r emoved, ors h oul d be af for ded r el i ef fr om r emoval
. Such r el i ef c an i ncl ude postp o nement of
r emoval , canc el l at i on of re m oval , or even adj us t m ent of s t atus t o t hatof l aw ful per m anentr es i dent
. See 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1229a( c) ( 4) , 1229b. I n s um , w hi l e anyal i en w ho i s i n t h e U n i t ed St at es unl aw ful l yfac es t he pr os pec t o f re m oval pr ocee di ngs bei ng i ni t i at ed agai ns ther/ hi m , w hethers / he w i l l actual l ybe or der ed
r emoved i s nevera ce r t ai nt yunt il al l l egal pr ocee di ngs have concl uded. M or eover , even aft er an or der of r emoval i s s ues , t he pos s i bi l i t yr emai ns t hatno countr y w i l l acc eptt he al i en. U nder
su ch circu m stan ce s, the C o n sti tuti o n li m it s the g o v ern m en t’ s
au tho ri tyto d etain so m eo n e in a n ti cipa ti o n o f re m o v al i f th ere is n o s ig n if

ica n t li k e lih o o d o f

re m o v a l in th e re a so n a b ly f o re s e e a b le f

u tu re . S e e Za dv

y da s v . D a v is , 5 3 3 U
. S
. 678, 699 (20 0 1 ). 23(...continued) 23 Court he ld t hat th eDu e Proc e ss C la

us eimp os e d re a so na

blene ss limit s on post-removal-period de tention, and thus that the g ov e rnme nt c ou ld n ot c ontin uethea liens ’ d e te nti on

ind e finit e ly

if therewa s “no signif

ic ant l ike lih oo d o f re mov a l in there a so na

bly fore seea ble future .” 533 U.S. at 701.

72 T he I N A , as amended, al s o pr ohi bi t s t he “ha rbor i ng” of al i ens l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus . It p rovi des t hatany per s on w ho “know i ng or i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa ctt hatan
a lien h a s c o m e to , en ter e d , o r re m a in s in th e U n ited S tate s in vi ol at i on o f law , conce al s , harbor s , ors hi el ds fr om det ect i on .

. . s uch al i en i n anypl ace , i ncl udi ng anybui l di ng oranym eans
o r t ra n s p o rt a tio n ” s h a ll b e s u b je c t to c ri m in a l p e n a ltie s . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 (a )( 1 )( A )( iii)
. For deca des , t he I N A cont ai ned no s peci fi c pr ohi bi t i on ag ains t th e e m p lo ym en t of ali en s lack ing lega l st atus . R athe r,
r egul at i on of t he em pl oy m ent of al i ens notl aw ful l ypr es entw as atm os ta “pe r i pher al conce r n. ” D eC anas v. B i ca , 424 U
. S. 351, 360 ( 1976)
. T hi s change d i n 1986, w hen C ongr es s amended t he I N A t hr ough enac t m entof the I m m i gr at i on R eform and C ont r ol A ct( “I R C A ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 99- 603, 100 St at . 3359 ( codi fi ed at 8 U
. S. C
. §§ 1324a- 1324b)
. I R C A “for cef ul l ym ade c om bat i ng t he empl oym entof i l l egal al i ens ce nt r al t o t he pol i cyof73 i m m i gr at i on l aw . ” H of f m an P l as t i c C om

pounds , I

nc. v. N ati on al Lab or R el ati on s B oa rd , 535 U
. S. 137, 147 ( 2002) (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s a n d a lte ra tio n s o m itte d ). 2. T he I m m i grat i on R ef orm and C ont rol A ct I R C A r egul at es t he empl oy m entof “un author i zed al i ens , ” a t er m of ar tdefi ned by t he s t atut e as t hos e al i ens nei t her“l aw ful l yadmi t t ed forper m anentr esi d ence ” nor “aut hor i zed t o be .
. . empl oy ed byt hi s chapt erorbyt he A tto rn e yG e n e ra l.” 8 U .S .C
. § 1 3 2 4 a (h )(3 ). IR C A m a k e s it unl aw ful t o know i ngl yhi r e orcont i n u e t o empl oyan unauthor i zed a l i en, ort o hi r e any one forempl oy m entw i t hout comply i ng w i t h t he w or k author i zat i on ver i fi cat i on s y s t em
c re a ted b yth e sta tu te. 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a (a )(1 )-(2 ). T h is
v e ri f ic a tio n s y s te m , o f

te n re f e rr e d to a s th e “ I- 9 p ro c e s s ,”
r equi r es t hatan em pl oy erexami ne ce r t ai n document s t hat
es tabli s h bot h i dent i t yand empl oy m entauthor i zat i on fornew
e m p lo y e e s . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324a( b)
. T he empl oy erm us tt hen fi l l ou t an I- 9 form at t est i ng t hat s / he revi ew ed these docu m ents , t hatt heyr eas onabl y appea r t o be genui ne, and thatt o t he bes tof the e m p loy er’s k n o w ledg e, th e em p loy ee is a u tho ri ze d to w o rk in th e U n ite d S ta te s . See i d. A l t hough empl oy er s ar e r equi r ed74 to v e rif yth e w o rk a u th o riz a tio n o f a ll em pl oyee s , C o n g re ss d id
n o t e x te n d th i s re q u ir e m e n t to in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to rs . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324a( a) ( 1) ( m aking unl aw ful t he know i ng “empl oym ent ” of a n unauthor i zed a l i en, and t he hi r i ng of an
em p loy ee fo r “e m p loy m en t” w ith o u t v erify ing the em p loy ee ’s
w or k author i zat i on) ; 8 C
. F. R. § 2 7 4 a . 1 ( f ) ( s p e c i fi cal l yexcl udi ng “ind ep en d en t co n tr ac tors” fro m the de fin it ion o f “ em p loy ee ”); 8 C .F .R . § 2 7 4 a .1 (g ) (s p e c if ica llye x c lu d in g a “ p e rso n o r e n tity
u sing
. . . co n tr ac t l ab o r” f rom the d ef

init ion o f “ em p loy er” ). Th e I
- 9 “ v e r i f

i c a t i o n s y s t e m i s c r i t i c a l t o t h e I RCA
r egi m e. ” H

of f m an P l as t i c C om

pounds , 535 U
. S. at147- 48. N ot onl yi s fa il u re t o us e the s y s t em i l l egal , butus e of the s y s t em p ro v id e s a n a f

f irm a tiv e d e f

e n se to a c h a rg e o f

k n o w in g ly
e m p lo y in g a n u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 a(a )(3). T hus , empl oy er s w ho us e t he I
- 9 pr oces s i n good fai t h t o ver i fy t he w or k author i zat i on of empl oy ees ar e pr es um ed nott o have know i ngl yempl oy ed so m e o n e u n a u th o riz e d to w o rk in th is
c o u n try . In e n a c tin g IR C A , C o n g re ss re q u ire d th e P re sid e n t to
m o n ito r th e s e c u ri ty a n d e f f ic a c y o f th is v e ri f

ic a tio n s y s te m . See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 3 2 4a( d)
. C ongr es s al s o i m pos ed l i m i t s on t he P re s id e n t’ s a b ility to c h a n g e it. I d.75 I n a d d i t i o n t o r e l y i n g o n t h e I
- 9 v e r i f i c a t i o n s y s t e m, IR C A u se s p u b lic m o n ito rin g , p ro s e c u ti o n , an d sa n c tio n s to det erempl oym ent o f unauthor i zed a l i ens . I R C A pr ovi des for th e c re a tio n o f

p ro c e d u re s th ro u g h w h ich m e m b e rs o f th e p u b lic
m ayfi l e compl ai nt s aboutpot ent i al vi ol at i ons ; i tauthor i zes im m ig ra tio n o f

f ice rs to in v e stig a te th e se c o m p lain ts; a n d it
cr eat es a compr ehens i ve hea r i ng and app ea l s pr oces s t hr ough
w hi ch compl ai nt s ar e eva l uat ed a n d ad jud i cat ed by
a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e s . See 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a (e )( 1 )- (3 ). U nderI R C A , an empl oy erw ho k n o w i ngl yhi r es an
u n au thor i zed a l i en s hal l be or der ed t o cea s e and de s i s tt he vi ol at i on, and t o pay betw een $250 and $2000 perunauthor i zed al i en fora fi r s toffe n se, bet w een $2000 a nd $5000 per unauthor i zed a l i en fora s econd of fens e, and betw een $3000 a nd $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 p e r u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n f o r a th ir d o r g re a te r o f

f e n s e . 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 a(e )(4). A n em p loy er w h o fa il s to v erifythe w o rk author i zat i on of i t s em pl oy ees can be or der ed t o paybetw een $ 1 0 0 a n d $ 1 0 0 0 f

o r e a c h p e rso n w h o se a u th o riz a tio n it fa iled to
a u t h e n t i c a t e . 8 U. S. C. § 1 3 2 4 a ( e ) ( 5 )
. Emp l o y e r s who enga ge i n a “pa t t ern orpr act i ce” of hi r i ng unauthor i zed a l i ens s hal l be fi ned up t o $3000 perunau t hor i zed a l i en, i m pr i s oned fornot8 U .S. C. § 13 24 b p ro vid e s in re le va nt p art tha t: 24 [with cer tain limit ed exceptions, it] is an unfair immigration-relate d e mpl oy me nt p ra c tic efo r a

perso n or other enti ty

to disc ri min ate ag ainst any

individual (other than a

n unauthorizedalien, as de fined in section 1324a(h) (3) of this ti tle) with respe ct to the hiring , or rec ruitment or refer

ral for a fee, of the i ndividual for employ ment or the discharg ing of the i ndividual from employ ment – (A) be causeof such individual' s national orig in, or (B ) in the ca se of a protec ted individual . . . becauseof such individual' s citiz enship status. 8 U .S. C. § 13 24 b( a). Any pe rs on a dv e rs e ly-a ff

e c te d b y an unf a ir i mm i grat i o n -r el at edemp l o y m entp ra ct i ce “m ay

fi l e ach ar ge respe ctingsuch pra ctice or violation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(b)(1). 76 m o re th a n s ix m o n th s , o r b o th . 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a (f )( 1 ). I R C A expr es s l ypr e- empt s s t at es and l ocal i t i es fr om i m pos i ng addi t i onal “ci vi l orcr i m i nal sanc t i ons ( ot hert han t hr ough l i cens i ng and si m i l ar l aw s ) upon t hos e w ho empl oy , or
re c ru it o r r e f

e r f o r a f e e f o r e m p lo ym e n t, u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n s .” 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 a(h )(2). B eca us e of i t s conce r n t hatpr ohi bi t i ng t he empl oy m ent of unautho r i zed a l i ens m i ghtr es ul ti n empl oy m ent di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tauth o ri ze d w or ker s w ho appea rt o be for ei gn, C ongr es s i ncl uded s i gni fi cantant i
- di s cr i m i nat i on p rotec ti o n s in I R C A
. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 b
. T h e sta tu te 24 p ro v id e s th a t, w ith c e rta in lim ited e x c e p tio n s, it is a n “ u n f a ir im m ig ra tio n -re late d e m p lo ym e n t p ra c tice ” to d isc rim in a te in h ir in g o n t h e b a s is o f

n a tio n a l o ri g in o r c itiz e n s h ip s ta tu s . 88 U.S.C. § 1324b(c) provide s in releva nt part that “[t] he 25 President shall appoint, by and with the advic e and c onsent of the Se nate , a Spe c ia l Co un se l f

or Immi gra tio n- Re late d Unf

a ir Employ ment Practice s.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(c)( 1). The Spec ial Counsel “shall be re sponsible for investig ation of cha rg es and issuance of

complaints under this section and in respec t of the prosecution of all such complaints before administrative law judge s.” 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(c)( 2). Therearesome diffe renc es betwe en the two se ctions. 26 T h ei mp o s i t i o no f

m o n e t ar y s an c t i o n s un d e r

§ 1 3 2 4 a i s m an d at o r

y, but discretionar

y under § 1324b. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e )(4) (A) with 8 U.S.C. § 1324b(g) (2)( B) (iv). Also, criminal penalties a

re a vailable f or certain patter

n-or- prac tice violations under § 1324a , but not available under § 1324b. See8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f )(1) . In contra st, § 1324b provides for c ompensatory relief , such as ba ckpay

and other reme dies, which is not availableunder § 1324a. See8 U.S.C. § 1324b(g) (2)( B) (iii) and (vii)- (viii). 77 U
. S. C
. § 1324b( a) ( 1)
. C ongr es s put t eeth i nt o t hi s pr ovi s i on by
cr eat i ng t he off

i ce of a “Spec i al C ouns el ” t o i nves t i gat e and p ro se c u te s u c h o f

f e n se s, a n d it r equi r ed

th a t th e P re sid e n t f

ill t hatpos i ti o n “w i t h t he advi ce a nd cons entof the Senat e. ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324b( c)
. C ongr es s al s o author i zed i m m i gr at i on 25 j udges t o puni s h t hos e w ho vi ol at e I R C A ’ s ant i
- di s cr i m i nat i on
m and at e byi m po si ng ci vil fi nes equ i valenti n a m o u nt t o those im p o s e d f

o r k n o w in g ly h ir in g u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n s . C om pa re 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 32 4a(e) (4) (A )( i)-(iii) w ith 8 U
. S
. C . § 1 3 2 4 b (g)(2 )(B )(i v )(I )-( III ). 2678 3. The I l l e ga l Im m i gr at i on Ref or m and I m m i gr ant R es ponsi bi l i t y A ct I n 1996, C ongr es s agai n ame n d ed the I N A byenac t i ng th e Illeg a l Im m ig ra tio n R e f o rm a n d Im m ig ra n t R e sp o n sib ili ty A ct( “I I R I R A ”) , Pub. L
. N o. 104- 208, 110 St at . 3009 ( codi fi ed
a s a me n d e d i n v a r i o u s s e c t i o n s o f 8 U. S
. C. )
. I n I I RI RA , C o n g ress d ir ec ted th e A tt o rne yG en era l, an d lat er the S ec retary of H o m elan d Secur i t y , t o conductt hr ee “ pi l otpr ogr ams of empl oym entel i gi bi l i t yconfi r m at i on” i n an att empt t o i m pr ove upon t he I
- 9 pr oces s . I I R I R A § 401 (a), 110 St at . 3009- 655. C ongr es s m andat ed t hat t hes e pr ogr ams be conduc t ed on a tr i al bas i s , f o r a l i mi t e d t i me p e r i o d , a n d i n a l i mi t e d n u mbe r of
s ta te s . See I I R I R A § 4 0 1 ( b )
- ( c ) , 1 1 0 S t a t . 3 0 0 9
- 6 5 5
- 6 6
. T wo of t hes e tr i al s y s t ems w er e di s cont i nued i n 2003. H ow ever , t he t hi r d – or i gi nal l yknow n as t he “B as i c Pi l otPr ogr am” but s i nce
re n a m e d “ E -V e rif

y ” – w a s re a u thor ize d a n d e x p a n d e d to a ll fif ty
s ta te s in 2 0 0 3
. See B as i c Pi l otPr ogr am E xt ens i on and E x p a n sio n A c t o f

2 0 0 3 , P u b . L . N o . 1 0 8 -1 5 6 , § § 2 , 3 , 1 1 7 S tat. 1 9 4 4 . It h a s b e e n re a u th o riz e d se v e ra l ti m e s s in c e , a n d its
curr entauthor i zat ion w il l exp ir e, ab sen t con g ression al ac t i on, on S e p te m b e r 3 0 , 2 0 1 2
. See D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity79 A p p ro p ria tio n s A c t, 20 1 0 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 1 -8 3 , § 5 4 7 , 1 2 3 S tat. 2 177; C ons ol i dat ed Secur i t y , D i s as t erA s s i s t ance , and C ont i nui ng A ppr opr i at i o n s Act , 2 0 0 9 , Pub
. L
. N o. 110- 329, D i v. A , § 143, 122 St at . 3580. E -V e rif ya llo w s a n e m p lo y e r t o a c tu a llya u th e n tica te appl i cabl e document s r athert han mer el yvi s ual l ys can them for g en u inen e s s . W h en u sing E -V erify , an em p loy er e n ters in f o rm a tio n f

ro m a n e m p lo y e e ’s d o c u m e n ts in to a n in ter n e tbas ed comput er pr ogr am, and thati nfor m at i on i s t hen t r a n s mi t t e d t o t h e S o c i a l S e c u r i t yAd mi n i s t r a t i o n a n d / o rDHS f o r a u th e n tic a tio n . See II R IR A , as am end ed, § 4 03 (a) (3)
. T hese agenc i es confi r m ort ent at i vel ynoncon fi r m w hethert he empl oy ee’ s document s ar e authent i c, and w hethert he empl oy ee i s a u th o ri z e d to w o rk in th e U n ite d S ta te s . See I I R I R A , as amended, § 403( a) ( 4)
. I f a t ent at i ve nonconf i r m at i on i s i s s ued, t he empl oy erm us tnoti fyt he empl oy ee, w ho m aycont es tt he
re s u lt. S e e id
. I f an e m pl oy ee doe s n o t c ont es tt he t ent at i ve
r es ul tw i t hi n t he st atut or i l ypr es cr i bed per i od, t he t ent at i ve
n o n c o n f i r m a tio n b e c o m e s a f

in a l n o n c o n f

ir m a tio n . See i d. If t he empl oy ee does cont es t i t , t he appr opr i at e age nci es under t ake
a d d itio n a l r e v ie w a n d u ltim a te ly iss u e a f in a l d e c is io n . S e e id
.Pur s u ant t o ane xe c uti v eo rd e r b y Pre s id e nt G e o rg eW. 23 Bush, c ertain fede ral g overnme nt contrac tors arenow also re quired to use E-Verify
. SeeEx ec. O rder No. 13,465, 73 Fe d. Reg . 33,286 (Jun. 6, 2008). 80 A n empl oy erm aynott ake a ny ad v ers e ac t i on agai ns tan
e m p lo y e e u n til it re c e i v e s a f in a l n o n c o n f

ir m a tio n . See i d. H ow ever , once a fi nal nonconfi r m at i on i s r ece i ved, an empl oy er i s expec t ed to t erm i nate the em ploy ee, or face sancti on s. W i t h onl ya fe w exce pt i ons , fede r al l aw m akes t he d ec isi o n o f w h ethe r to use E -V erify rathe r than the de fa u lt I -9 p ro c e s s e n tir e ly v o lu n ta ry. See IIR IR A , as am en d ed , § 4 0 2 (a). F e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t em p lo y e rs a n d c e r ta in e m p lo ye r s p r e v io u sly f o u n d g u i l t yo f v i o l a t i n g I RCA a r e c u r r e n t l yr e q u i r e d t o u s e EV e rif y ; all o th e r e m p lo y e rs r e m a in f re e to u se th e sy ste m o f

th e ir choi ce. See I IR IR A , as a m e n d e d , § 4 0 2 (e ). S ig n if ica n tly , in 23
en ac ti n g IIR IR A , C o n g ress spe cifica ll y p roh ibit ed the S ec retary
o f H o m e lan d S e c u rityf

ro m re q u irin g “ a n yp e rso n o r o th e r e n tity to p a rt ic ip a te in [ E -V e ri f y ].” See IIR IR A , as a m en d ed , § 4 0 2 (a). C o n g ress a lso d ir ec ted th e S ec retaryto p u b li cize the “ v o lun tary natur e” of

t he pr ogr am and t o ens ur e that governm ent
r epr es ent at i ves ar e ava i l abl e t o “i nfor m per so n s and other
en ti ti es th at see k inf

o rm ati o n ab o u t [E -V erify ] of [it s] vo lun tary81 n a tu re .” II R IR A , a s a m e n d e d , § 4 0 2 (d ). T h o se e m p lo y e rs w h o e lec t to u se E -V e rif ya n d a c tu a lly d o u se th e sy ste m to c o n f irm a n e m p lo y e e ’s a u th o riz a tio n to
w or k ar e ent i t l ed t o a r ebut t abl e pr es um pt i on t hat they d i d not h ir e tha tem p loy ee k n o w ing that s/he lack s au tho ri za ti o n to w o rk in this co u n tr y . See IIR IR A , as a m en d ed , § 4 0 2 (b)(1 ). E m p lo y e rs w h o e lec t to u se E -V e rif y , b u t in p ra c tice c o n tin u e to
u se th e I
- 9 p ro c e ss , are n o t en tit led to th e E -V e rif yre b u ttab le p re s u m p tio n , b u t c a n s till c la im th e I- 9 a f f ir m a tiv e d e f

e n s e . See IIR IR A , as a m en d ed , § 4 0 2 (b)(2 ). B . St at e and L ocal I m m i grat i on L aw s A s w e n o ted a t th e o u tse t, state a n d lo c a l atte m p ts to
r egul at e i s su es re lat ed to im m igrati o n h av e sk yroc k eted in r ece nt y e a rs . A ccordi ng t o the N at i on al C on ference of S tate L eg isl ature s (“N C S L ”), 30 0 b i l l s pert ai ni ng t o i m m i gr at ion w ere i nt r oduced i n s t at e l egi s l atur es i n 2005, and thi r t y - ei ghtof them
w e re e n a c ted in to law . N a tio n a l C o n f e re n c e o n S tate L e g i s la tu re s , 2009 St at e Law s R elat ed t o I m m igr ant

s and I m m i g r a t i on Januar y 1- D e c e mbe r 31, 2009 , h ttp ://w w w . n csl. o rg/d ef a u lt.a s p x ? tabid = 1 9 2 3 2 (l a s tvi s i t ed A ug. 20, 2010)
. L es s t han fi ve y ear s l at er , t hes e number s hadIn fac t, Hazleton’s mayor g ot the idea of enac ting the 24 I IRAO and the RO f

rom similar ordinance s, considere d but never passed, in San B erna

rdino, California. See J .A. 1385-87.

82 in c re a se d m o re th a n f iv e -f o ld : in 2 0 0 9 , o v e r 1 ,5 0 0 b ill s per t a i n i n g t o i mmi g r a t i o n wer e i n t r o d u c e d
. Fr o m th e s e , 222 la w s w e re e n a c te d , a n d 1 3 1 re s o lu tio n s a d o p te d
. I d. A num ber of t hes e l aw s cont ai n pr ovi s i ons t hatar e ei t her i den t i cal , or si m i l ar, t o p rovi si on s i n H azl et on ’s ordi nan ces. 24 In th e irb ri e f f

ile d o n b e h a lf

o f P la in tif f s , A m i ciC ur i ae C h a m b e rs o f

C o m m e rc e n o te th a t A riz o n a , M iss iss ip p i, O kl ahoma, U t ah, T en n es s ee, L oui s i ana, W es tV i r gi ni a, C ol or ado, M i nnes ot a, G eor gi a, and R hode Is l and, as w el l as t he
m uni ci pal i t i es of V al l eyPar k, M i s s our i ; M i ssion V i ej o, C a l i f o r n i a ; B e a u f

o r t C o u n t y, S o u t h C a r o l i n a ; a n d A p p l e V a l l e y, C a lifo rn ia, h a v e a ll en a c ted law s th a t in so m e w a yre g u late
e ith e r th e p ro c e d u re s e m p lo y e rs m u st u n d e rta k e in o rd e r to avoi d hi r i ng unauthor i zed a l i ens , ort he pena l ti es tha tcan be i m pos ed fordoi ng s o. I n addi t i on, Pl ai nt i ffs cal l ou r att ent i on to se ver al l ocal i t i es , i ncl udi ng E s condi do, C al i forni a and the C ityof Far m er s B r anch, T exas , w hi ch have pas s ed or di nance s
re g u latin g th e p ro v isio n o f re n tal h o u sin g to a lien s n o t law f u lly presenti n the U nit ed S t at es.83 V a rio u s c h a llen g es have been l eveled a t th e se e n a c tm e n ts

– m os t comm onl y , at t acks r oot ed i n t he Supr emacyC l aus e – and the resu lt ing b o d y o f ca se l aw inf o rm s o u r an aly sis. T h e C o u rt of A ppeal s fo r th e N i nt h C i r cui t , aff i r m i ng a dec i s i on byt he D i s t r i ctC our tfort he D is t r i ctof A r i zona, uphel d an A r i zona
s t a tu t e r e q u i r i n g a l l e m p l o ye r s w i t h i n t h e s t a t e t o u s e E
- V e r i f y, and s ubj ect i ng bus i nes s es t hatempl oyunauthor i zed a l i ens t o a gr aduat ed s er i es of s anct i ons up t o and i ncl udi ng t he perm anent
r evoca ti on of t hei rbus i nes s l i cens es . T hatcour tr ej ect ed the p la in tif f s ’ p re -e m p ti o n a n d d u e p ro c e s s c la im s . See Chi canos P orLa C aus a, I

nc. v. N apol i t ano , 5 5 8 F
. 3 d 8 5 6 (9th C ir
. 2 0 0 9 ),
cer t . gr ant ed , 7 8 U
. S
. L
. W
. 3 0 6 5 (Jun
. 2 8 , 2 0 1 0 ) (N o . 0 9 -11 5 ). T he D i stri ctC ou rtfor t he E ast ern D i stri ctof M i ssouri al so uphel d an empl oym entor di nance vi r tual l yi dent i cal t o t he I I R A O agai ns t pr e- empt i on, due pr oces s , and equal pr ot ect i on
c h a lle n g e s , a s w e ll a s c h a lle n g e s b a s e d o n s ta te la w . See G r ay
v . Ci t y of Val l e y Park , N o. 4: 07C V 00881, 2008 W L 294294 (E .D . M o . J a n . 3 1 , 2 0 0 8 ), af f ’ d on othergr ounds , 567 F. 3d 976 (8 th C ir . 2 0 0 9 ). In c o n tra st, th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e T e n th C irc u it par t i al l y aff

i r m ed a pr el i m i nary i nj unct i on i s s ued by t he D i s t r i ct84 C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ct of O kl ahoma, barr i ng enfor cementof ce r t ai n pr ovi s i ons of an O kl ahoma l aw on pr eempt i on gr ou n d s. M uch l i ke the I I R A O , t hatl aw r equi r ed empl oy er s in O k la hom a t o ver i fythe w ork author i zat i on of i ndepende ntcontr act or s , and al s o cr eat ed a pr i vat e ca us e of act i on againstbu si ness ent i t i es that em ployun authori zed ali ens. See C ham ber of C om m er ce v. E dm onds on , 5 9 4 F .3 d 7 4 2 (1 0 th C ir
. 2 0 1 0 ). T h e D istric t C o u rts for the S ou th e rn D istric t o f C a lifo rn ia and the N or t hern D i s t r i ctof T ex as have hel d t hator di nance s sim il ar to the h o u sing p rov isi o n s o f th e IIR A O an d the R O are p re -e m p te d
. See V

i l l as at P arksi de P artners v. C i t y of Fa rm ers Br an c h ( “ F ar m e rs Br an c h I I I ”) , __ _ F
. S up p. 2d __ _, N os. 3: 08- cv- 1551- B , 3: 03- cv- 1615, 2010 W L 114 1 3 9 8 ( N
. D
. T ex. M a r. 2 4 , 2 0 1 0 ); V

i l l as at P arksi de P artners v . C i t y of Fa rm ers Br an c h ( “Far m e rs Br an c h I I ”) , 577 F. Supp. 2d 858 ( N
. D
. T ex. 2 0 0 8 ); G ar r et tv. C i t

y of Es condi do , 4 6 5 F
. S u p p . 2 d 1 0 4 3 ( S
. D. C al. 2 0 0 6 ). C . Pre - e m pt i on A s w e have expl ai ned , the di s t r i ctcour tent er ed the chal l enged i nj unct i on beca us e i t concl uded t hat t he I I R A O andPlaintiffs present a fac ial challeng e to these ordinance s. 25 In W ashington State Grangev. W ashington State Re

publican Party, the Supreme Court e xplained: Under United States v. Salerno , 481 U.S. 739 (1987), a plaintiff ca

n only succe ed in a f

acial challeng e by

“esta blish[ ing] that no set of circ umstances e x ists under which the A ct would be valid,” i.e. that the law is unconstitutional in all of its applications. Id. at 745. While some Members of the Court havecriticized the Salerno formulation, all agreethat a fa cial challeng e must fail where the statute has a “plainly

leg itimate sweep.” W as hingto n v . G luck

sb e rg , 521 U.S. 702, 739-40 and n.7 (1997)
. 55 2 U .S. 44 2, 44 9 ( 20 08 ) ( a lteratio n in orig inal) . B a se d o n th is languag e, Hazleton ins ists that we must apply the Salerno standard to Plainti ffs’ c laims under the Supre macy Clause. Howe ver, since both W ashington State Grangeand Salerno inv olv e d q uit e different constitutional challeng es than the one s we c onsider here, it i s n ot at a ll c le ar t

hat Salerno applies. None theless, it is clear that solely

“hy pothetical conf

licts” betwe en state a

nd local e na c tme nts and

fe de ral la w a reus ually ins uf fi c ie nt t o s up po rt

a findingof pre -emption. See Sc hneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co. , 485 U.S. 293, 310 (1988). 85 t h e RO , a mo n g o t h e rf a i l i n g s , a r e p r e - e mp t e d b yf e d e r a l l a w. A lth o u g h o u r re a so n in g d e p a rts f ro m th a t o f

th e d istric t co u rt,
w e agr ee w i t h i t s concl us i on. See Jo hn son v O rr , 776 F. 2d 75, 25 8 3 n .7 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 5 ) (“ A n a p p e ll a te c o u rt m a ya f f irm a re su lt
r eac hed by t he di s t r i ct cour t on r eas ons t hat di ffe rs o l ong as t he
rec o rd su p p o rt s the jud g m en t. ”). T he Supr emacyC l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on p r o v i d e s t h a tt h e l a ws o f t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s “ s h a l l b e t h e s u p r e me86 L aw of t he Land .
. . anyT hi ng i n t he C ons t i tut i on orL aw s of
an yS tat e to th e C o n tr aryn o tw ith stan d ing
. ” U
. S
. C o n st. art. V I, cl
. 2. T he pr e- empt i on doctr i ne i s a nec es s aryout gr ow t h of the Su p r e ma c y Cl a u s e . I t e n s u r e s t h a t whe n Con g r e s s ei t her expr es s es ori m pl i es an i nt ent t o pr ecl ude ce r t ai n s t at e orl ocal l egi s l at i on, offe ndi ng enac t m ent s cannots t and. A s t hi s C our t has r ece nt l y not ed, “the S upr eme C our thas
r ecogni zed t hr ee types of pr eempt i on: expr es s pr eempt i on, i m pl i ed conf

l i ctpr eempt i on, and fi el d pr eempt i on. ” B ru e se w itz
v. W yeth I nc. , 561 F. 3d 233, 238- 239 ( 3 d C ir
. 2009) ( ci t i ng Hi l l s bor ough C ount

y, F l a. , v. A ut om at ed Med. Labs. , I nc. , 471 U
. S. 707, 713( 1985)
. B ot h confl i ctpr e- empt i o n an d fi el d pr ee m p tio n a re typ e s o f im p lie d p re -e m p tio n . See, e. g. , Hi l l s bor ough C nt

y. v. A ut om at ed Med. Labs, I nc. , 471 U
. S. 707, 713 ( 1985)
. H ow ever , i r r es pect i ve of t he “type” of pr e- empt i on i nvol ved, “the purpos e of C ongr es s ” i s t he “t ouchs t one” of any p r e - e m p t i o n in q u ir y . W yeth v. Levi ne , 129 S. C t . 1187, 1194 (2 0 0 9 ) ( in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itte d ). H ow ever , i ti s i m por t antt o not e that C o n gr es s does not

“ c a v a lierly ” p re -e m p t sta tes o r m un i ci pali t i e s f ro m a c tin g w ith in th e p a ra m e te rs o f th e ir h is to ri c p o lic e p o w e rs . Medtr oni c, I nc.87 v. Lohr , 518 U
. S. 470, 485 ( 1996)
. A ccor di ngl y , i n pr e- empt i on i nqui r i es , w e as s um e “thatt he hi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s of the St at es w er e not t o be s uper s eded by t he Feder al A ctunl es s t hat
w as t he cl ear and mani fes tpurpos e of Congre s s . ” Id
. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. W hen s t at es actbey ond t he s cope of t hei rhi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s , how ever , and w anderi nt o “an a r ea
w h e re th e re h a s b e e n a h is to ry o f s ig n if ic a n t f e d e ra l p re s e n c e ,”
w e do notbegi n w i t h t hi s assum pt i on of nonpr e- empt i on. U ni t ed Stat es v. Locke , 5 2 9 U
. S
. 8 9 , 1 0 8 (20 0 0 ). E x p re ss p re -e m p tio n o c c u rs w h e n C o n g re ss e x p re ss ly d e c la re s a la w ’s p re -e m p tiv e e f f e c t. See Lor i l l ar d Tobacco C o.
v . R e ill y , 5 3 3 U .S
. 5 2 5 , 5 4 1 (2 0 0 1 ). In su c h c a se s, “ o u r ta sk is t o i dent i fy t he dom ai n expr es s l ypr e- empt ed. ” I d. I n doi ng s o,
w e foc us i n t he fi r s ti ns t ance “on the pl ai n w or di ng of the [ f e d e ra l sta tu te’ s p re -e m p tio n ] c la u se , w h ich n e c e ss a rily
c o n ta i n s t h e b e s t e v id e n c e o f C o n g re s s ’ p re -e m p tiv e in te n t.” S p r i e t s ma v . Me r c u r

y Mar i ne , 537 U
. S. 51, 62- 63 ( 2002) ( i nter nal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. W e al s o cons i dert he “s t ructur e and purpos e of the st atut e as a w hol e . . . as r evea l ed notonl yi n t he t ext , butt hr ough [our ] r eas oned under s t andi ng of th e w a yin w h ich C o n g re ss in ten d e d th e sta tu te a n d its88 s ur r o undi ng r egul at or ys cheme t o [oper at e]
. ” Me d tr o n ic , 518 U
. S
. at 48 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion m ark s an d cit ati o n o m itted). I m pl i ed fi el d pr e- empt i on occur s w hen st at e orl ocal governm ent s at t empt r egul at i on i n a fi el d w hi ch C ongres s has im p lie d a n in te n t to e x c lu s iv e ly o c c u p y . See Engl is h v. G en. E l ectr i c C o. , 4 9 6 U .S
. 7 2 , 7 9 (1 9 9 0 ). C o n g re ss ’s in ten t to
o c c u p y a f

i e l d c a n b e i n f

e r r e d wh e r e a f

e d e r a l r e g u l a t o r ys c h e me i s “s o per vas i ve as t o m ake r eas onabl e the i nfer ence t hat C ongr es s l eftno r oom fort he St at es t o s uppl ement i t , ” G ade v. N a t’ l So li d W

a s te s M g m t. A ss’n , 505 U
. S. 88, 98 ( 1992) (i nternal quotat i on m arks o m i t t ed), or w here an A ctof C on gress “t ouch[e s ] a fi el d in w h ich t he fe der al i nt er es ti s s o dom i nant t hatt he fe der al s y s t em w i l l be as s um ed t o pr ecl ude enf or cement of s t at e law s o n t he s ame subj ect , ” R i ce v . Sant a Fe El evator C o r p ., 3 3 1 U .S . 2 1 8 , 2 3 0 (1 9 4 7 ). Im p lied c o n f

lict p re -e m p tio n o c c u rs w h e re it i s

“ im p o s s ib le . . . to c o m p ly w ith b o th s ta te a n d f e d e ra l la w ,” G ei erv. A m . H

onda Mot orC o. , 529 U
. S. 861, 873 ( 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) , or w her e s t at e l aw “s t ands as
a n o b sta c le to th e a c c o m p lish m e n t an d e x e c u tio n o f th e f u ll purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s , ” Hin e s v. D a v ido w itz , 31289 U .S . 5 2 , 6 7 (1 9 4 1 ). “I m p o ss ib ili ty ” c o n f lict p re -e m p tio n e x ists onl yw her e i ti s t rul y i m pos s i bl e t o compl y w i t h bot h fede r al and
s t at e l aw . “O bs t acl e” c onfl i ctpr e- empt i on, on t he otherhand,
r equi r es a br oaderi nqui r yi nt o t he purpos es under l y i ng a fe der al sta tu te, a n d w h e th e r a sta te la w sta n d s a s a n o b sta c le to
e f f e c tu a tio n o f

th o se p u rp o se s. “ W h a t is a su f f icie n t o b sta c le is
a m at t er of j udgm ent , t o be i nfor m ed byexami ni ng the fe der al
s t a tu t e a s a who l e a n d i d e n t i f y i n g i t s p u rp o s e a n d i n t e n d ed eff ect s . ” C ro sb

y v . N a t’l Fo re ig n T

ra d e C o u n c il , 530 U
. S. 363, 3 7 3 (2 0 0 0 ). T he Supr eme C our thas l on g m ade c l eart hatfede r al interests are p ara m o u n t i n the f iel d o f im m igrati o n . T h e C o u rt expl ai ned s eventyy ear s ago: “[t ] hatt he s upr emacyof the nat i onal pow er i n t he gener al fi el d of for ei gn aff ai r s , i ncl udi ng pow eroveri m m i gr at i on, natur al i z a t i o n and deport at i on, i s m ade cl earbyt he C ons t i tut i on w as poi nt ed out b y au t hor s of The Feder al i s ti n 1787, an d has s i nce be en gi ven cont i nuous
r ecogni t i on by t hi s C our t . ” Hi nes , 3 1 2 U .S . at 6 2 ; se e a lso T o ll
v. Mor eno , 4 5 8 U .S . 1 , 1 0 (1 9 8 2 ). H ow ever , t he Supr eme Court has al s o expl ai ned thatnot
everys t ate o r lo cal enac t m entt hataff ect s t he r i ght s of al i ens90 nece s s ar il y i nt er fer es w i t h t he fe der al i nt er es ti n i m m i gr at i on. I n D eC anas v. B i ca , 4 2 4 U
. S
. 3 5 1 (1 9 7 6 ), the S u p rem e C o u rt
a rticu late d a f

ra m e w o rk f

o r a n a ly z in g p re -e m p t io n c h a llen g e s to
s t at e and loca l l aw s t hati m pactt he r i ght s of al i ens butdo not

“ r e g u l a t e i mmi g r a t i o n . ” Al t hough D eC anas w as deci ded a d ec ad e be fo re C o n g ress en ac ted IR C A an d tw o d ec ad es b ef o re it e n a c ted IIR IR A , m a n ya sp e c ts o f th e C o u rt’s a n a ly sis a re still
r e l e v a n tt o o u ri n q u i r y. I n D eC anas , th e S u p rem e C o u rtco n side red w h ethe r a sta te la w p ro h ib iti n g th e e m p lo ym e n t o f p e rso n s u n la w f

u lly pr es entw as pr e- em p ted byt he I N A
. C al i forni a had e nact ed l egi s lat ion pr ohi bi t i ng empl oy er s w i t hi n t he s t at e fr om “knowi n g l ye mpl o y [ i n g ] a n a l i e n who i s n o te n t i t l e d t o l aw ful
r es i dence i n t he U ni t ed St at es i f s uch empl oy m ent w oul d have
a n a d v e rs e e f

f e c t o n la w f

u l r e s id e n t w o rk e rs .” Id
. a t352 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. A g roup of m i gr ant farm w or ker s s ued, ar gui ng t hat t he l aw w as pr e- empt ed both by th e C o n stitu tio n ’s e x c lu siv e d e leg a tio n o f th e p o w e r to re g u late i m m i gr at i on t o t he fe der al governm ent , and b y the I N A
. T he C our tdi s agr eed. I n uphol di ng t he s tat ut e, t he C our texpl ai ned thatt he91 “ [ p ]o w e r to re g u late im m ig ra tio n is u n q u e stio n a b lye x c lu siv e ly a fe der al pow er” undert he U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, p r e c lu d in g a ll state in v o lv e m e n t ev e n if Con g r e s s h a s n e i t her expr es s ed nori m pl i ed i t s i nt entt o pr ecl ude thats t at e r egul at i on. I d. at 354. “[T] he C ons t i tut i on of i t s ow n for ce r equires pr eempt i on” of a nys t at e ef for t s t o actual l yr egul at e i m m i gr ati on. I d. at 3 5 5
. H o w ev er, the C o u rt also ex p lai n ed that n o t “ e v ery st at e enac t m ent w hich i n an y w a ydeals w i t h ali ens i s a
re g u latio n o f im m ig r a tio n a n d th u s p e r se p re -e m p ted b yth is
cons t i tut i o n al pow er . ” I d. R ather , a s t at e l aw onl yr egul at es im m ig ra tio n if it is “ e ss e n tiallya d e ter m in a tio n o f w h o sh o u ld
ors houl d notbe admi t t ed i nt o the countr y , and the condi t i ons
u n d e r whi c h a l e g a l e n t r a n t ma y r e ma i n . ” Id
. A s C ali fo rnia’s law d id n o t in tru d e in to th e s e p ro sc rib e d a re a s, th e C o u rt h e ld t hati tw as notpr e- empt ed, abs entcongr es s i onal act i on. T h e C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t C a lifo rn ia’ s la w w a s n o t f ield p re-em p ted b ythe IN A ’s re g u lat o rysch em e. F ir st, the C o u rt exp l ai ned t hat “t he r egu l at i on of em ploym ent of i l l egal al i ens”
w as nota s ubj ectm at t erof s uch cl earand m an ifes tfede r al i m por t ance as t o r equi r e the conc l us i on t hati tw as occupi ed by f e d e ra l r e g u l a t i o n . Id
. at356. T he C our tr eas oned thats t at esIn rea chingthis conclusion, the Court disti nguished ca ses 26 in which pre -emption was f ound based on the“pre dominance of federal intere st in the fields of immigration and fore ign a ffairs.” DeCanas , 424 U.S. at 363. It expl ained that “therewould not appea r to be a simil ar f ederal intere st in a situation in which the statelaw i s f

a sh ion e d to reme dy

loc a l prob le ms, and

op e rate s o nly on local employers, a

nd only with respec t to indivi duals whom the F e de ral G ov e rnme nt h a s alr e a dy de c lare d c ann ot w or

k in thi s country .” Id. 92 have “ br oad author i t y under t hei rpol i ce pow er s t o r egul at e the
e m p lo ym e n t r e la tio n s h ip to p ro te c t w o rk e rs w ith in th e S ta te ,”
a n d t h a tCa l i f

o r n i a ’ s l a w fe l l “ wi t h i n t h e ma i n s t r e a m of s uch p o l i c e p o wer r e g u l a t i o n. ” I d
. B eca us e the l aw “foc us e[d] di r ect l y upon t he[] es s ent i al l yl ocal pr obl ems [of e m pl oy i ng i l l egal al i ens ] and [w as ] tail or ed t o combateff ect i vel yt he p erc eive d e v ils ,” itd id n o t t o u ch u p o n a f iel d that b yit s v ery natur e w oul d s upp o r tno concl us i on butt hatC ongr es s had
o c c u p ied it. Id
. at357.

26 Secondl y , t he C our tconcl uded that the IN A as i tt hen
e x iste d d id n o t re f

lec t cle a r a n d m a n if

e st c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t to pr ecl ude s t at e r egul at i on i n t h e fi el d of empl oy m entof al i ens h e re u n law f

u lly . T h e n , the IN A w a s p rim a rilyc o n c e rn e d w ith “the t erm s an d condi t i ons of admi s s i on t o t he countr yand the
s ubs equent treatm entof al i ens l aw ful l yi n t he countr y . ” Id
. at 359. O nl yone pr ovi s i on of one s ect i on of the I N A evenThat provision was c ontained in 8 U.S.C. § 1324, the 27 se c tio n whic h ma

ke s it a fe lony to “ha rb or”ill e g a l e ntrants , a

nd it state d th at e mpl oyinga liens he reun lawf ully “ sh a ll not

be deemed to constitute harboring .” DeCanas , 424 U.S. at 360 (internal quotation marks omitted) (empha sis added). 93 me n t i o n e d t h e e mpl o yme n t o f p e r s o n s n o t l a wfu l l y i n t he
c o u n try . T h is e v id e n c e d “ a t b e st . . . a p e rip h e ra l c o n c e rn w ith

27
e m p lo ym ent of i l l egal ent rant s, ” w hich w as i nsuff i ci ent t o
es t abl i s h a congr es s i onal i nt ent t o occupyt he fi el d. I d. at360. T o t he contr ary , t he C our t bel i eved t hat C ongr es s had i ndi cat ed i t s i n t e n t , t h r o u g h l a ws a d d r e s s i n g f a r m l a b o r c o n t r a c t o r s , for t he St at es t o “cons i s t entw i t h fede r al l aw , regul at e the empl oym entof i l l egal al i ens . ” Id
. a t 3 6 1
. T he C our tdi d not , how ever , actual l yrul e on the i s s ue of confl i ct pr e- empt i on. R ather , i t r emanded t he m at t er s o t hatt he l ow er cour t s coul d det er m i ne i f C al i forni a’ s l aw w as “cons i s t ent
w it h fe d era l l aw . ” I

d. In a ll o ther res p ec ts, tho u g h , the C o u rt fo u n d the c h all en g ed law an ap p rop ri ate u s e o f stat e p o w er, gi ven both i t s l i m i t ed i m pactupon “i m m i gr at ion” and C ongr es s ’ s t hen l i m i t ed for ay i nt o r egul at i ng t he empl oy m entof persons l acking l aw ful i m m i grat i on st atus. In s u m , D eC anas h o ld s th a t th e f e d e ra l au th o r ityto “regul at e i m m i gr at i on” i s excl us i ve, buts t at es ar e not94 nece ssar i l ypr ecl uded fr om r egul at i ng ( cons i s t entw i t h fede r al l aw ) cer t ai n local i ssues affect i ng t he ri gh t s of al i ens, un l ess C ongr es s has i ndi cat ed an i nt entt o pr ecl ude s uch r egul at i on. 1. E m p l oy m en t Pro vis i on s
a. P res um pt i on A gai nst P re- em pt i on T he di s t r i ctcour tcon cluded t hatt he empl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons of t he I I R A O w er e expr es s l ypr e- empt ed, fi el d pr eempt ed, and conf

l i ctpr e- empt ed. H azl et on chal l enges eac h of t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s concl us i ons on m ul t i pl e gr ounds
. H azl et on fi r s tcl ai m s t hatt he di s t r i ctcour terr ed i n fai l i ng t o appl yt he pr es um pt i on agai ns tpr e- empt i on. W e agr ee. A s w e have not ed, C ongr es s d o es notcas ual l ys w eep
aw ayt he hi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s of s t at es . T hi s r eal i t yunder l i es t he r ebutt abl e pr es um pt i on t hatfede r al l egi s l at i on does notpr ee m p t th o se p o lice p o w e rs a b se n t “c lea r a n d m a n if e st”
c o n g re s s io n a l in te n t to th e c o n tr a ry. Me d tro n ic , 518 U
. S. at 4 8 5
. O n lystat e a n d loca l law s aim ed at area s b ey o n d the s tat e’s hi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s , t hatventur e i nt o m at t er s l ong r egul at ed b yth e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t, are n o t af f o rd e d th e b e n e f

it o f th is p re s u m p tio n . See Locke , 529 U
. S. at108 ( “[A ] n as s um pt i on of nonpr e- empt i on i s nott r i gger ed w hen t he St at e r egul at es i n an95 ar ea w here t her e has been a hi s t or yof s i gni fi cantfede r al p rese n ce . ”) (interna l qu o tat ion m ark s o m itted). In a n a ly z in g th e a p p lica b ili ty o f th e p re su m p tio n in th is
cas e, t he di s t r i ct cour tr eas oned that“[i ] m m i gr at i on i s an ar ea of t he l aw w h ere ther e i s a hi s t or yof s i gni fi cantfede r al pr es ence
a n d whe r e t h e St a t e s h a v e n o tt r a d i t i o n a l l yo c c u p i e d t h e fi el d. I n fac t. . . i m m i gr at i on i s a fede r al conce r n not a s t at e orl ocal
m at t er . ” Lozano , 49 6 F
. S up p. 2d at51 8 n
. 41
. B ased on th is
r eas oni ng, t he di s t r i ctcour t r efus ed t o pr es um e nonpr e- empt i on. H ow ever , t he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s anal y s i s i s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he fr amew or k s etfor t h i n D eC anas . A s w e not ed above , i n DeCa n as th e S u p rem e C o u rt expl ai n ed that not“eve r ys t at e ena ct m entw hi ch i n anyw ay deal s w i t h al i ens i s a r egulat i on of i m m igr at i on . ” 424 U
. S. at 3 5 5 (e m p h a sis a d d e d ). R a th e r, law s re g u late im m ig ra tio n o n ly i f t heyat t empt t o r egul at e “w ho s houl d ors houl d n o t be adm it t ed i nt o t he countr y , and the condi t i ons underw hi ch a l egal en t r antm ayr emai n. ” I d. H azl et on’ s empl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons t her efor e pl ai nl ydo not r egul at e i m m i gr at i on under D eC anas . R ather , t heyr egul at e the empl oy m entof per s ons
u n a u th o riz e d to w o rk in th is c o u n try , an d lik e th e law a t issu e in96 D eC anas , fal l w i th in t he st at e’s his t ori c po l i ce po w ers . A c c or di ng l y , the ymus tbe ne fi tfr om t he pr e s umpt i on a ga i nst pr e- empt i on. W e ar e aw ar e, of cour s e, t hat t he l ands cap e o f feder al im m igrati o n law h as c h an g ed d ram a ti ca ll ysinc e the C o u rt deci ded D eC a n as . I n enac t i ng I R C A , C ongr es s cl ear l ym ade t he regu l at i on of the em ploym ent of un authori zed ali ens a
c e n tra l c o n c e rn o f

f e d e ra l im m ig ra tio n p o licy . H o w e v e r, w h ile th is s e a c h a n g e in th e f e d e ra l re g u lato rysc h e m e is in c re d ib ly i m por t antfo rpurpos es of ours ubs t ant i ve ana l y s i s , i tdoes not negat e t he oper at i on of t he pr es um pt i on agai n st pr e- empt i on. T he ap pli c a bil i t yof the presum pti on turns on a st at e’s h isto ric pol i ce pow er s . B ydefi ni t i on, t hatm ean s t hatt he pr es um pt i on depends on t he pa st bal ance of s t at e and f eder al r egul at i on, not
o n th e p re se n t. A s w e have j us t expl ai ned, unt i l t he pas s age of I R C A , t he f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t p la ye d a t m o st a v e rysm a ll ro le in
r egul at i ng t he empl oy m entof per s ons w i t houtlaw ful im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s . See D eC anas , 4 2 4 U
. S
. at 36 0
. M o reo v er, t he S u p reme C our tconcl uded thatC ongr es s t hen i nt ended f or t he s t at es t o, “cons i s t entw i t h fe d er al l aw , r egul at e the97 empl oym entof i l l egal al i ens . ” I d. at36 1. T hu s, w hen C on gress
enac t ed I R C A , i tbegan l egi s l at i ng i n an ar ea i n w hi ch s t at es had regul at ed, and i n w hich t he fe deral go vernm ent, for t he m ost par t , had n o t. A ccor di ngl y , w e pr es um e thatC ongr es s di d not i nt end t o s w eep a w ayt he s t at es ’ hi s t or i c pol i ce p o w er s by
e n a c t i n g I R C A , a b s e n tc l e a re v i d e n c e t o t h e c o n t r a r y. b. E x pres s P re- em pt i on A s not ed above, I R C A i ncl udes an expr es s pr e- empt i on cl aus e, w hich st at es t hat : “[t ] he pr ovi s i ons of thi s s ect i on pr eemp t anySt at e orl ocal l aw i m pos i ng ci vi l orcr i m i nal
s anct i ons ( ot hert han thr ough l i cens i ng and s i m i l arl aw s ) upon th o se w h o e m p lo y , o r re c ru it o r re f e r f o r a f e e f o r e m p lo ym e n t,
u n a u t ho r i z e d a l i e n s . ” 8 U. S
. C. § 1 3 2 4 a ( h ) ( 2 )
. Th u s , I RCA expr es s l ypr e- empt s s t at e and l ocal l aw s t hats anct i on t hos e w ho empl oyunauthor i zed a l i ens , unl es s t he s anct i on i s i m p os ed th ro u g h a lic e n s in g , o r s im ila r, l a w . T he di s t r i ctcour tr ead this cl aus e as expr es s l ypr ee mp t i n g Ha z l e t o n ’ s e mp l o yme n tp r o v i s i o n s i n t h e I I RA O becau se t heyi m po se a sanct i on – the suspensi on of a b usi ness l i cense – on bu si ness ent i t i es that em ployun autho ri zed ali ens. H azl et on had ar gued t hat t he II R A O i s a l i cens i ng l aw , and thusIn e ff e c t, t he n, thedis tric t c ourt

be lie ve d th at a

bu sin e ss 28 lic e ns ewa s n ot t

hesp e c ie s o f “ lic e ns e ”Con gre ss h a d in min d in exempting licensinglaws from express pre-e mption. 98 s aved f r om t he expr es s pr e- empt i ve r eac h of I R C A , butt he di s t r i ctcour tdi s agreed
. T he courtr eas oned thats i nce the I I R A O i m pos es t he “ul t i m at e s anct i on” of ent i r el y t aki ng aw ay
a b u sin e ss ’s a b ili tyto o p e ra te , it is “ a t o d d s w ith th e p lain lan g u a g e o f

th e e x p re ss p re -e m p tio n p ro v isio n , w h ich is
conce r ned w i t h s t at e and l ocal m uni ci pal i t i es cr eat i ng ci vi l and
c ri m in a l s a n c tio n s a g a in s t e m p lo y e rs .” Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 28 2d at519. T he di s tr ict co ur tal s o concl uded, bas ed on a r evi ew of I R C A ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y , t hatt he I I R A O ’ s sch eme for
r evoki ng l i censes is i ncons i s t entw i t h t he congr es s i onal i nt ent
u n d e rlyin g I R C A ’s s a v in g c lau se . A c c o rd in g to th e c o u rt, C ongr es s had no i nt ent i on, i n exempt i ng li ce n s i ng l aw s fr om
e x p r e s s p re -e m p tio n , o f p e rm itt in g sta tes a n d lo c a lit ies to i ndepende nt l yadj udi cat e w hethera bus i nes s ent i t yhas empl oy ed an una ut hor i zed a l i en. In rea chi ng t hi s concl us i on, th e d istric t co u rt re v iew e d H .R . R e p . N o . 9 9 -6 8 2 (I), re p rin ted in 1986 U
. S. C
. C
. A
. N
. 5649, t he s ol e pi ece o f I R C A ’ s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or ydi r ect l ydi s cus s i ng t he pr e- empt i on pr ovi s i on. B as ed onTh eHo us eRepo rt state s: 29 [t ]he penalties containe d in this l eg islation are intended to spec ifically

preempt any

state or local laws providingcivil fines and/or c riminal sanctions on the hiring , rec ruitment or re fer ral or un do c umente d aliens . T he y areno t inte nd e d to pree mpt or prevent lawful state or local proc esses c on c e rn ingthesu sp e ns ion , re vo c atio n o r re fu sal to reissue a license to a

ny person who has been found to h avev iol

ated th esa nc tio nsprov isi on s in thi s legislation . Fur

ther, the Committee does not intend to p re e mpt

lic e ns ingor

“ fi tne ss t o d o b us ine ss laws,” suc h as state f

arm labor contra ctor law s or fore stry laws, which spe cifically

requiresuch l i ce n s ee o r c o ntra ct o r t o re fr ai nfr o mh i ri n g, re c ruiti ngor

re ferringun do c umente d aliens . H.R. Rep. No. 99-682(I), at 12 (emphasis added)
. 99 s ever al sen tence s i n t hatR epor t , t he courtconcl uded that C ongr es s i nt ended the s avi ng cl ause t o onl yexempt fr om expr e s s p r e - e mpt i o n l o c a l l a ws t h a tr e v o k e t h e l i c e n s e s of per s ons w ho the f

eder algover nm ent

has f o u n d g ui l t

y of
v i o l a t i n gI

RCA , and nott he l i cens es o f p er s ons w ho l ocal i t i es i n d e p e n d e n t l y a d

j u d i c a t e g u i l t yo f

v i o l a t i n g t h e i ro wn prohibi t i on s agai nstem ploy i ng un authori zed al i ens. B ecause 29 t he I I R A O cr eat es i t s ow n pr ocedur es foradj udi cat i ng w hether an empl oy eri s gui lt y o f empl oy i ng unauthor i zed a l i ens , and
r evokes l i cens es bas ed on t hatdet er m i nat i on, r athert han bas ed
o n a f e d e r a l d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a t a n e mp l o y e rh a s v i o l a t e d I RC A,L ic e ns eDe fi nition , M e rriam- Web ster. c om, 30 http://www.mer

riam-webster.com/dictionar y /license (la st visit ed Aug . 17, 2010). 100 t he cour t concl uded t hat t he I I R A O ’ s empl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons do
n o t f a ll w ith in th e s c o p e o f IR C A ’s s a v in g c la u s e . See Loz ano , 4 9 6 F . S u p p . 2 d a t 5 2 0 . O n a p p e a l, H a z leto n re n e w s its
ar gum entt hatt he I I R A O ’ s empl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons ar e a “l i cens i ng” l aw w i t hi n t he meani ng of I R C A ’ s s avi ng cl ause, and w e agr ee. A s not ed ear l i er , t he t extof I R C A ’ s expr es s pr e- empt i on cl aus e expl i ci t l yexcl udes fr om i t s pr e- empt i ve s cope “ l i cens i ng
a n d s i mi l a r l a ws . ” Co n g r e s s d i d n o t d e f i n e t h e s e t e r ms . Te r ms th a t ar e n o t sta tu to rilyd e f in e d a re u s u a ll ya sc rib e d th e ir “or di naryornatu ral m eani ng. ” Fed. D epos i tI ns . C or p. v. Meye r , 5 1 0 U
. S
. 4 7 1 , 4 7 6 (19 9 4 ). M e r r i a m- W e b s t e r ’ s Di c t i o n a r y d e f i n e s a l i c e n s e a s “a per m i s s i on gr ant ed bycompet entauthor i t yt o engage i n a b u s in e s s o r o c c u p a tio n o r i n a n a c tiv ity o th e rw is e u n la w f u l.” 30 Si m i larl y , B l ack’ s L aw D i ct i onarydefi nes a l i cens e as “a p e rm iss io n , u su a llyr e v o c a b le, to c o m m it so m e a c t th a t w o u ld ot herw i s e be unl aw ful
. ” B l ack’s La w D i ct i on ary (8th ed
. 2 0 0 4 ). H er e, t he I I R A O condi t i ons t he gr antof a bus i nes s l i cens e on a101 bus i nes s ’ s agr eement nott o empl oyunauthor i zed a l i ens , and on th e b u s in e s s ’s c o n tin u e d a d h e re n c e to th a t a g re e m e n t . A bus i nes s l i cens e ce r tai n lyfal l s w i t hi n t he pl ai n m eani ng of a

“ lic e n se” an d there fo re, i t seem s clea r th at t h e IIR A O ’s pr ovi s i ons fors us pendi ng s uch l i cens es cons t i tut e a “l i cens i ng la w .” Pl ai nt i ffs nonethel es s ar gue, cons i s te ntw i t h t he di s t r i ct
cour t ’ s d e c i s i o n , t h a tI RCA ’ s e x p r e s s p r e - e mpt i o n p r o v i s i on
w o u ld b e to o th les s if

a sta te o r m u n icip a lityc o u ld e f f e c tiv e ly ci r cumvent t he gene r al pr ohi bi t i on on im p os i ng s anct i ons by i m pos i ng s anct i ons of thi s s ever i t y . A ccor di ng t o Pl ai nt i ffs , t he lo ss of a bu si ness l i cense i s the “d eat h p enalty ” for a bu si ness,
a n d th e e x p re ss p re -e m p tio n c lau se w o u ld b e sw a llo w e d b yits
exce pt i on i f a l aw r egul at ing b u sine s s l i cens es i s hel d t o be a l i c e n s i n g l a w. I n s uppor t of t hei r ar gum ent , Pl ai nt i ffs ci t e s ever al r ece nt S u p re m e C o u rt c a se s w h ich sta n d f o r th e p ro p o sitio n th a t co u rts sh o u ld rea d sav ing clau ses n arro w ly , an d in li g h t of the s tatu tory
s c h e m e a s a w h o le
. S e e A e tn a He a lth In c . v. D a v ila , 54 2 U. S. 2 0 0 , 2 1 7 (20 0 4 ); G ei er , 5 2 9 U .S . at 8 7 0 -7 1 ; Locke , 529 U
. S. at 106. L ooki ng at I R C A and i t s purpos es m or e br oadl y , Pl ai nt i ffs102 ar gue thati ti s cl ear t hatC ongr es s coul d nothave i nt ended the
s avi ng cl aus e t o per m i t s t at es and l ocal i t i es t o r evoke the bu si ness l i censes of empl oy ers w ho em ployun authori zed ali ens. T he pr obl em w i t h Pl ai nt i ffs ’ ar gum ent , how ever , i s t hat
e v e n if w e lo o k m o re b ro a d lya t IR C A a s a w h o le, th e re is sim ply no basi s for w edg i ng t he l i m i t at i on P l ai nti ffs urge in to t he t ext . C ongr es s unequi vocal l ys t at es i n t he s avi ng cl aus e that li ce n sing law s are n o t ex p resslyp re-em p ted b yIR C A
. N o w h ere i n I R C A ’ s t ext or l egi s l at i ve hi s t or yi s t her e an i ndi cat i on t hat Co n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t h a t c l a u s e t o a p p l yo n l yt o l i c e n s i n g l a ws that im pos e mi norpenal t i es , and nott o l i cens i ng l aw s t hat i m pos e more s i gni fi cants anct i ons . Si m i larl y , t her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatC ongr es s i nt ended t o excl ude l aw s r egul at i ng t he pr ovi s i on, s us pens i on, and re vocat i on of busi nes s l i cens es fr om t he t er m “l i cens ing l aw , ” and Pl ai nt i ffs do notoffe ran al t ernat i ve def

i ni t i on of “l i cens e” thatw oul d s ens i bl yexcl ude b u s in e s s lic e n s e s . See C hicanos P or L a C au sa , 558 F. 3d at865 (find ing “n o su p p o rt fo r [p lai n ti ff s’] interpre tat ion ” of the term

“ lic e n s e ” a s e x c lu d in g b u s in e s s lic e n s e s ). W hen s t atut or y l anguage i s pl ai n and unambi guous , “the
so le f u n c tio n o f th e c o u r ts . . . is to e n f o rc e it ac c o rd in g to itsPlaintiffs also argue that the IIRAO is not a bona fide 31 l i ce n s i n g l aw . T h ey

n o t e th atth e IIRAO ’s t i t l e an d i t s “F i n d i n gs and De c laratio n o f P ur

po se ”se c tio n ma

keno re ferenc eto licensing , and that the IIRAO does not re fer to any exis ting licensingprovisions. Thus, rather than beinga truelicensinglaw direc ted towards any

leg itimate local conc erns, Plaintiffs claim that theI IRA O s ho uld

beviewe d a s p art

of a sc he meint e nd e d to regulate immigration by

keepingall persons lac king la wful immigration status out of the City , and by supplanting thefederal g overnme nt’s role in these matters. The a rgument has significant fo rc e, an d i s v er y tro u b l i n g. Th is re c ord is no t w ith out su pp or t f or theprop os iti on

that, in ena c tin gbo th t

heI IRA O a

nd theRO , th eHazle ton

City Counc il wa s tr yingto u see ve ry

too l at it s disp os a l no t mere ly to add re ss local conc erns with a “purely speculative and indirec t impact on immigration,” DeCanas , 424 U.S. at 355, but to alter to the best of its ability the landsca

pe of f ederal immigration regulation as well. See, e .g. , J.A . 1 28 9 ( te sti mony of thePr e sid e nt o f H azle ton ’s City Council that he intended Hazleton’s ordinance s to forcethe fe deral g overnme nt into action); J .A. 1713 (testimony of Hazleton’s mayor that the IIRAO is intended “to deter and punish illeg al immigra nts”). F urthermore, it appea rs that these ordinance s were enac ted as pa

rt of an org anized campaign of cer tain states and localities attemptingto collectively reme dy what they

view as the federal g overnme nt’s failureto “sec ure our border s.” See, e .g. , J .A. 1438 (testimony

of Hazleton’s mayor that he ha s encourag ed communities across the c ountry to enac t simi lar ordina

nces)
. Although theSupreme Court has ne ver dire ctly addre ssed how the intent behind a loc al ena ctment should fac tor into a preemption analysis under these c ircumstance s, we do not think the Hazleton City

Council’s intent is irrelevant. See Plyler , 4 57 U. S. at 207 (notingthe district court’s de termination that the law at issue had neither

“the pur pose [n] or ef

fec t of keeping illeg al aliens out of the State of Te x as”) (internal quotation marks omitted); DeCanas , 424 U.S. at 354 n.3 (notingdisagree ment amongthe (continued...) 103 t er m s . ” L am i e v. U

nit ed S t ates T

r. , 5 4 0 U
. S
. 526, 534 ( 2004) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed)
. W e ther efor e conc l ude that t he I I R A O i s a l icens i ng l aw underI R C A ’ s s avi ng cl aus e and
s aved f r om expr es s pr e- empt i on. 31(...continued) 31 California state c ourts as to whethe r California’ s law wa s “aimed at immigration control”) ( internal quotation marks omitted). However, wealso realiz e that the Supre me Court has explained that states are not “without any power to deter theinfluxof per sons entering theUnited States ag ainst federal law , and whosenumbers might havea disce rnableimpact on traditional state c oncer ns.” Plyler , 457 U.S. at 229 n.23. The SupremeCourt will undoubtedly speak to this tension so on , g iven th enumber o f s tate s a nd loc a litie s atte mptingto c hip awa y piece -meal at the fe deral power to re gulate immigration. F or tun ate ly , w ene e d n ot w a deint o th e semur ky wate rs in o rd e r t o resolve theclaims before us. As wewill explain, the employ ment provisions are plainly

pre- empted, re g ardle ss of the intent behind them, beca

use they pose an obstac le to the ca ref ul balancingof interests underlying IRCA. The district cour

t also conclude d that the IIRAO’s 32 employ ment provisions are pre-e mpted beca use IRCA occupies the field of “ the employ

ment of unauthorized aliens.” Lozano , 4 96 F. Sup p. 2d at 52 4. Th is i s a

broa d f ie ld ind e e d, and

a dif fi c ult conclusion to sustain g iven IRCA’s savingclause
. See I nt’l Paper Co. v . O ue lle tte , 479 U.S. 481, 492 (1987) (Theexis tenceof a savin gc la us e“ ne g ate s th einf

e renc etha

t Co ngre ss ‘ le ft

no ro om’ (continued...) 104 P lai n ti ff s also arg u e (c o n sist en t w ith the d istri ct co u rt ’s deci s i on) t hatt he I I R A O does notfal l w i t hi n I R C A ’ s s aving cl aus e bec aus e i tcr eat es and r el i es upon i t s ow n adj udi cat i ve
s y s t em for de t er m i ni ng w hetheran empl oy erhas empl oy ed an unauthor i zed al i en, r ather t han r el y i ng, as C ongr es s i nt ended, on th e a d ju d ica ti v e s y ste m c re a ted b yIR C A . B e c a u se th is
ar gum ent i s bet t er addr es s ed i n t he cont ext of t he purpos es and obj ect i ves under l y i ng I R C A , w e att end t o i t i n ourdi s cus s i on of obs t acl e conf

l i ctpr e- empt i on. 32(...continued) 32 for statecause s of ac tion.”). Plaintiffs, however, pre ss the argument of field pre-e mption only in a footnote, a

nd we therefore consider it waived. See J ohn W yeth &Bro., Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp. , 1 19 F .3 d 1 07 0, 10 76 n. 6 ( 3d Cir . 1 99 7) (n oting , iron ic a lly e no ugh in a fo otn ote , th at “ arguments raise d in pa ssing(s uc h a s, in a footnote) , but not squarely argued, are conside red w aived” ). 105 c. C onf l i ct P re- em pt i on T hatt he I I R A O ’ s empl oy m entpr ovi s i ons ar e s aved f r om
e x p r e s s p r e - e mp t i o n d o e s n o t e n d o u ri n q u i r y . As t h e S u p r e me C our thas emphasi zed, a l aw t hati s s aved f r om expr es s pr ee m p tio n is s till i n v a lid if it is c o n f

lic t p re -e m p te d
. See G ei er , 529 U
. S. at870- 72. T he fa ctt h at C o n g r es s i nt ends t o s ave a gener a l c l a s s o f

l a ws , s u c h a s l i c e n s i n g a n d s i mi l a rl a ws , fr om
e x p re ss p re -p re e m p tio n d o e s n o t m e a n th a t C o n g re ss in ten d s to p e rm it anyl aw w i t hi n t hatcat egoryeven i f i ti m pedes fede r al i nt er es t s . A fe d eral l aw t hatfor ecl os es confl i ctpr e- empt i on anal y s i s i s one that“def eat [s ] i t s ow n obj ect i ves . ” I d. at872. C ongress m ayi nt end “s uch a c om pl ex type of s t at e/ fede r al
re la tio n s h ip ,” b u t w e w ill n o t a s s u m e i t a b s e n t p ro o f
. I d. T her efor e, even though t he I I R A O i s a l i cens i ng l aw , i tcannot be al l ow ed t o oper at e i f compl i ance w i t h both it s em p loym ent pr ovi s i ons and I R C A i s i m pos s i bl e, ori f thos e pr ovi s i ons s t and
as an obs t acl e t o t he obj ect i ves under l y i ng I R C A
. I n ei t hercas e,106 t h e S u p r e m a c y C l a u s e r e q u i r e s t h a tt h e I I R A O g i v e w a y. T h e d istri ct co u rtco n clud ed that the IIR A O ’s empl oym ent pr ovi s i ons ar e pr e- empt ed byI R C A beca us e of the
n u m e ro u s w a y s in w h ich th e y“ d if f e r f ro m a n d c o n f

lict w ith I R C A
. ” Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at 529. H azl et on ar gues t hat th e d istric t co u rt e rre d b yc o n f la tin g “ m e re d if

f e re n c e ” w ith confl i ct s s uffi ci entt o r es ul ti n pr e- empt i on. H azl et on’ s B r . 46. T h e C i tycorr ect l yar gues thatconfl ictp re-em p ti o n o cc u rs
o n lyif a “ d if f e re n c e ” e ith e r m a k e s itim p o ss ib le to c o m p lyw ith bot h fede r al and l ocal l aw or“s t ands as an o b st acl e t o t he
acc om pl i s hm entand exe cut i on of the ful l purpos es and obj ect i ves of C ongr es s . ” Hi nes , 3 1 2 U .S . at 6 7 ; s ee al s o F l a. Li m e & A vocado G r ow ers , I nc. v. P aul , 373 U
. S
. 132, 141 (19 6 3 ). W e too h av e c o n ce rns a b o u t th e d is tr ic t cou rt ’s
a p p ro a c h , b o th b e c a u s e it d id a t ti m e s e q u a te d if f e re n c e w ith confl i ct , and bec aus e i tfai l ed t o anchori t s ar t icul at i on of the
co n g ression al pu rpo ses u n d e rl y ing IR C A to tha t st atute’s la n g u a g e a n d le g is la tiv e h is to ry. N on et heles s, up on a t ho rough con si derat i on of th ose purpo ses, w e agr ee thatt he I I R A O ’ s empl oy m entpr ovi s i ons
s t and as an obs t acl e t o the ac compl i s hm entand exe cut i on of107 fede r al l aw , and thus ar e pr e- empt ed. A s w e w i l l expl ai n, i ti s i ndi s put abl e thatC ongr es s w ent t o cons i d e r a b l e l e n g t h s i n e n a c t i n g I RCA t o a c h i e v e a c a r e ful b a lan c e a m o n g its c o m p e tin g p o licyo b jec tiv e s o f

e f f e c ti v e ly de t e r r i n g e mpl o yme n to f u n a u t h o r i z e d a l i e n s , mi n i mi z i n g t he
r es ul t i ng bur den on empl oy er s , and pr ot ect i ng author i zed a l i ens
a n d c itiz e n s p e rc e iv e d a s “ f o re ig n ” f ro m d is c r i m i n a tio n . See E dm onds on , 594 F. 3d at767 ( I R C A bal ances the goal s of “pr event i ng the hi r i ng of unauthor i zed a l i ens , l es s eni ng t he d isru p tio n o f A m e ric a n b u sin e ss , an d m in im izin g th e p o ss ib ili ty
o f e m p lo ym e n t d isc rim in a tio n .”). T h e IIR A O su b sta n tially
un derm i nes t his careful balance. Itfurt hers the fir stof these fede r al obj ect i ves att he expe ns e of t he other s . T hi s “s i gni fi cant confl i ct ” is suf

fi ci entt o r ebutt he pr es um pt i on agai ns tpr ee m p tio n , s ee G ei er , 52 9 U
. S
. at88 5 , a n d i nv al i date these pr ovi s i ons undert he Supr emacyC l aus e. IR C A w a s “ o n e o f

th e lo n g e st a n d m o st d if f icu lt l egi s l at i ve undert aki ngs of r ece ntm emory . ” Pr es i dent i al S tate m e n t o n S ig n in g th e Im m ig ra tio n R e f o rm a n d C o n tro l A c t, 2 2 W eekl yC om p. Pr es . D oc. 1534 ( N ov. 10, 1986)
. O vert he
cour s e of numer ous s es s i ons , C ongr es s deba te d t aki ng t heAt the time of IRCA’s passag e, there wa s still signific ant 33 opposition t o requiringemployers to play a rolein enforc ing the nation’s immigration policy
. See, e .g. , 132 Cong. Rec . H10583-01 (daily ed. Oc t. 15, 1986) (stateme nt of Rep. Martinez) (“ For the fi rs t ti mein h ist or

y , th is b illins tit

ute s F e de ral penalti e s f

or private citizens who hire illeg al aliens. . . . [We should] put the burden of enforcingthe law on the G overnme nt, whereit belongs, not on private e mployers. Not only is this unfair to private e mployers, but it will cause them, out of fe ar, to discriminate ag ainst prospec tive employees who are‘foreign-looking .’”)
. 108 t her et ofore unpr ece dent ed s t ep of di r ect l ypr ohi bi t i ng t he
e m ploym ent of “un authori zed ali ens. ” C on gress ult i m ate ly 33
comm i t t e d t o e n a c t i n g e mpl o y e rs a n c t i o n s , b u ti n s o d o i n g,
comm i t t ed eq u all yt o enac t i ng m eas ur es t hatw oul d pr ot ect group s l i kelyt o b e un fai rl ybu rdened byt ho se s a n c t i on s –
e m p lo y e rs a n d a u th o riz e d w o rk e rs. IR C A is th u s “ a c a re f u lly
cr aft ed pol i t i cal compromi s e w hi ch at everyl evel bal ance s
s peci fi cal l ychos en meas ur es di s cour agi ng i l l egal empl oy m ent
w ith m e a su re s to p ro tec t th o se w h o m ig h t b e a d v e rse ly aff ect ed. ” N

a t’ l C tr . f

orI m m i gr ant s ’R ight s , I nc. v. I N S, 913 F .2 d 1 3 5 0 , 1 3 6 6 (9 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), r ev’ d on oth ergr ounds , 502 U .S . 1 8 3 (1 9 9 1 ). Co n g r e s s p a i d c o n s i d e r a bl e a t t e n t i o n t o t h e c o s t s I RCA
w o u ld im p o s e o n e m p lo y e rs , s ee, e. g. , H
. R
. R ep . N o . 9 9 -68 2 (I) , at43 ( “C ons i der ab l e di s cus s i on w as gener at ed dur i ng t he p roces s i ng of [thi s bi l l ] t o t he ef fec tt he empl oy ers anct i ons109 p ro v isio n s w e re p lac in g a n u n d u e b u rd e n o n e m p lo y e r s in
r equi r i ng t hem to do t he pape r w or k and kee p r ecor ds on
e m p lo y e e s.” ), a n d d ra f

ted th e leg isla tio n in a m a n n e r th a t w o u ld
m i nim i ze t ho se burden s, s ee, e. g. , 13 2 C o n g . R ec. H 10583- 01 ( dai l yed. O ct . 15, 1986) ( s t at ement of R ep. B r y ant ) ( I R C A has b e e n “ c a re f

u lly d e s ig n e d f

o r t h e m in im u m b u rd e n n e c e s s a ry . . . to b e e f f e c tiv e .” ). C o n g ress h ee d ed thes e c o n ce rns in c raf ti n g IR C A ’s pr os ecut ion a nd adj udi cat i on s cheme. For exampl e, i tl i m i t ed i nves t i gat i on of compl ai n ts to thos e w i t h a “s ubs t ant i al pr obabi l it y of val i di t y ” i n or dert o m i ni m i ze the pos s i bi l i t yof

“ h a ra s s m e n t” o f

“ in n o c e n t e m p lo y e rs .” 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 a (e )( 1 )( B ); S . R e p . N o . 9 9 -1 3 2 , a t 3 5 (1 9 8 5 ). S im ila r l y, C ongr es s “i nt ended t o m i ni m i ze t he burde n and t he ri s k pl ace d on t he empl oy eri n t he ver i fi cat i on pr oces s . ” C ol l i ns Foods I n t ’ l , I n c . v . I NS , 9 4 8 F
. 2 d 5 4 9 , 5 5 4 (9th C ir
. 1 9 9 1 ). A c c o rd in g ly , the I-9 p r o c e ss o n lyre q u ire s e m p lo y e rs to
as cert ai n w hetherempl oy ees ’ document s appea r“on [thei r ] fac e t o be ge n u ine. ” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324a( b) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i ) ; H
. R
. R ep. N o. 9 9 -6 8 2 (I) , a t 1 6 . C o n g re ss c o u ld h a v e re q u ire d e m p lo y e rs to
a s c e rt a in th e a c tu a l le g itim a c yo f s u c h d o c u m e n ts ; it d id n o t.110 J us tas i m por t ant l y , C ongr es s s t r ove t o ens ur e that t he p ro h ib iti o n a g a in st h irin g u n a u th o riz e d a lien s w o u ld n o t re su lt i n di s cr i m i nat i on againstauthor i zed w or ker s ( w hetheral i en or ci t i zen) w ho appea r“for ei gn, ” as C ongr ess fe ar ed that
over caut i ous empl oy er s m i ght i ncorr ect l y as s um e s uch per s ons
w ere u n au th o ri ze d to w o rk in the U n it ed S tat es. IR C A ’s l egi s l at i ve hi s t or y coul d not be m or e pl ai n oremphat i c aboutt he congr es s i onal comm i t m entt o pr event ing t hi s s or tof dis cri m i nati on . T he H ou se R epo rtexp l ai ns: N um er ous w i t nes s es overt he p as tt hr ee C o n g resse s h av e e x p re s s e d their de ep co n ce rn th a t th e im p o sitio n o f

e m p lo y e r s a n c tio n s w ill caus e ext ens i ve empl oy m entdi s cr i m i nat i on a g a in st H isp a n ic- A m e ric a n s a n d o th e r m in o rity gr oup m ember s . . . . [T]he C om m i t t ee doe s b e liev e th a t ev e rye f f o rt m u st b e tak e n to m i ni m i ze t he pot ent i al i t yof di s cr i m i nat i on and t hat a m echa ni s m t o r emedyanydi s cr i m i nat i on that d o es o c cu r m ustbe a pa r tof thi s l egi s l at i on.

. . . [ A] nti -discri m i na t i on pr o t ect i on s are e ss e n tia l to th is b ill
. H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99- 682( I ) , at22 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks
om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added)
. I R C A i s t hus “del i cat el ybal ance d t o s er ve the goal of pr event i ng unauthor i zed a l i en empl oy m ent
w hi l e avoi di n g di s cr i m i nat i on agai ns tci t i zens and author i zed al i ens . ” C o ll ins Fo o d

s Int’l , 948 F. 2d at554. A s w e expl ai ned111 e a rlie r , C o n g re ss c re a ted th e o f f ice o f a S p e c ial C o u n se l to h a n d le d is c ri m in a tio n c h a rg e s , s ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324b( c) , and
s p e c if ic a lly re q u ir e d th a t th e P re s id e n t f ill th a t p o s itio n , s ee 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 32 4b (c) (1)
. A s al so detai l ed ab ov e, C on gress author i zed a dm i ni s t r at i ve l aw j udges t o i m pos e on empl oy ers found gui ltyof di s cr i m i nat i on ci vi l penal t i es equi val entt o t he penal t i es i m pos ed on empl oy er s found gui lt y of empl oy i ng
u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n s . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 b (g)(2 )(B )(i v )(I )-( III ). T he Supr eme Court has cons i s t ent l y found s t at e and l ocal l aw s w hi ch alt ert he ca r eful bal anci ng of obj ect i ves
ac co m p l i s hed bya fe der al l aw t o be pr e- empt ed, and s o have
w e . S e e , e. g. , B o n ito B o a ts , In c . v . T h u n d e rC r a

ft B o a ts , In c ., 489 U
. S. 1 4 1 , 1 44 ( 1989) ( fi ndi ng Fl or i da l aw pr e- empt ed b ecaus e i ts t ruck the bal ance betw een “ t he enc our agementof in v e n tio n a n d f

re e c o m p e tit io n in u n p a ten ted id e a s” d if f e re n tly f ro m f e d e ra l p a ten t law ); R ogers v. Lars on , 563 F. 2d 617, 626 (3d C i r. 19 77 ) (fi nd i ng V i rgi n Isl and s l aw pre- em pted becau se i ts t ruck the bal ance betw een “ as s ur [i ng] a n adequa t e l aborfor ce on t he one ha nd and
. . . pr ot ect [i ng] t he j obs of ci t i zens on t he
o ther” d iffe ren tl yfro m fe d era l i m m igrati o n law ). H az let o n ’s I I R A O under m i nes I R C A ’ s car eful bal anci ng of obj ect i ves i n at112 l eastfou r w ay s. Fi r s t , t he I I R A O s i gni fi cant l y i ncr eas es empl oy erbur den by cr eat i ng a s epar at e and i ndepende nt adj udi cat i ve s y s t em for det er m i ni ng w hetheran empl oy eri s gui l t yof empl oy i ng
u n a u t h o r i z e d a l i e n s . Ha z l e t o n ’ s s y s t e m f a i l s t o r e f l e c t t h e s a me
c o n c e rn w ith re d u c in g e m p lo y e r b u rd e n a s IR C A . In c o n tra st to t he fe der al r equi r ement t hata compl ai nt h av e a “subs t ant i al pr obabi l i t y of val i di t y , ” t he I I R A O per m i t s i nves t i gat i on of any
c o m p lain t lo d g e d a g a in st a n e m p lo y e r re g a rd les s o f its lik e ly
m eri t . U nd er Sect i on 4 o f t he II R A O , a com plai nt i s val i d so l ong as i ti ncl udes an “ all egat i on w hi ch des cr i bes t he al l eged vi ol at or ( s ) as w el l as t he act i ons cons t i tut i ng t he vi ol at i on, and t h e d a t e a n d l o c a t i o n whe r e s u c h a c t i o n s o c c u r r e d
. ” I I RA O § 4 B
. U p o n r ece i ptof any s uch compl ai nt( s o l ong as i tdoes al l ege a vi ol at i on on t he bas i s of nat i onal or i gi n, et h n ici ty , or
r ace ) , H azl et on’ s C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce m us t , “w i t hi n t hr ee bu si ness day s, requesti den t i t yi nfo rm at i on f rom t he b usi ness
e n ti tyreg ard ing an yp erso n s all eg ed to b e u n law fu l w o rk e rs .” II R A O § 4 B (2 )- (3 ). S i m i l arl y , t he II R A O provides em ploy ers w ith
s ubs t ant i al l yfew erpr oced u r al pr ot ect i ons t han I R C A
. U nder113 I R C A , an em p loy erm us tbe pr ovi ded w i t h not i ce a nd an op po rtun i t yfor a heari ng , and an ad m i nis t rat i ve law j ud ge m ust fi nd t he empl oy er gui l t y of vi ol at i ng I R C A bya pr eponder ance of the evi dence bef

or e a n ys a n c tio n s c a n b e im p o s e d
. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324a( e)
. T hatempl oy er a l s o has a r i ghtt o an
a d m in is tr a tiv e a p p e a l a n d ju d ic ia l r e v ie w . See i d. I n m ar ked contr as t , t he I I R A O r equi r es H azl et on’ s C o d e Enfor cement O ffi ce t o im m ediat el y suspend t he b usi ness l i cense o f a bu si ness ent i t yw hi ch f

a i l s t o p r o v i de r eques t ed i nfor m at i on aboutal l eged
u n la w f u l w o r k e rs w ith in th re e b u s in e s s d a y s . See I I RA O § 4 B (3 ). A d d iti o n a lly , if a b u sin e s s e n ti tyf a ils to ter m in a te
a n y o n e th a t H a z leto n h a s d e c id e d is an u n law f u l w o rk e r w ith in th re e b u sin e ss d a y s, th e C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice im m e d iate ly
s u s p e n d s its lic e n s e . See I I R A O § 4B ( 4)
. A bus i nes s ent i t yt hat h a s b e e n “ su b

jec t to a c o m p lain t an d su b se q u e n t en f o rc e m e n t” can then s eek r el i ef i n cour t , butbot h t he pr ocedur e and
r emedi es avai l abl e t o t hatempl oy erar e ent i r el yuncl earon t he f a c e o f th e o rd in a n c e . See I I RA O § 7 F. T he crux of thi s confl i ct , how ever , t r ans cends t he di ffe r ence s betw een the I I R A O ’ s pr os ecut i on and adj udi cat i on
s y s t em and I R C A ’ s . R ather , i t i s r oot ed i n t he fa ctt hatH azl et on114 h a s e s t a b l i s h e d a n a l t e r n a t e s y s t e m a t a ll
. A s w e have
e x p lain e d , C o n g re ss c re a ted a c o m p re h e n siv e a n d c a re f u lly ba l a nc e d p r os e c ut i on a nd a dj ud i c a t i on s y s t e m, a nd fo r e most
a m o n g its g o a ls in d o in g so w a s to m in im iz e th e b u rd e n th is
s y s te m w o u ld im p o s e o n e m p lo y e rs . See Edm onds on , 594 F. 3d at 751 ( I R C A “exha us t i vel ydet ai l s a s peci al i zed a dm i ni s t r at i ve
sc h e m e f o r d e ter m in in g w h e th e r a n e m p lo y e r h a s k n o w in g ly empl oy ed an unauthor i zed al i en. ”)
. W e t her efor e ca nnotfathom th a t C o n g r e s s in ten d e d to to ler a te th e “ su p p lem e n tin g ” o f its
car eful ly cr aft ed s y s t em w i t h i ndepende nts t at e and l ocal sy st em s, w hich byt heirm ere exi st ence d ras t i cal l yi ncrease b u rd e n s o n e m p lo y e rs . U n d er the IIR A O , a b u sine ss in H az leto n m u s t w o rry abo ut tw o separat e sy st em s of co m plai nts , i nv est i gati on s, p rose cu ti o n s, an d ad

jud icati o n s. F u rth erm o re, H az let o n ’s
or di nance i s not t he onl y cons i der at i on her e, gi ven the emer gi ng la n d s c a p e o f

lo c a l a n d s ta te re g u la tio n in th e a re a . See, e. g. , B u c kma n Co
. v . P l

s . ’L eg a lCo mm. , 531 U
. S. 341, 350 ( 2001) ( expl ai n ing tha ti f one s t at e’ s t or ts y s t em i s per m i t t ed then fe d era l l aw w il l hav e to o p era te “ in the sh ad o w o f 5 0 S tat es’ tort
r egi m es [ther eby ] dr amat i cal l y i ncr eas [i ng] t he burde ns fac i ngAlthough w e havebeen f ramingthis question as one of 34 c on fl ic t pre -emption , H azel ton ’sa c tio ns may besu bje c t to fi e ld pre- emption as well. “F ield pree mption arises by implication when state law oc cupies a

‘field reser

ved for federal re gulation.’ Brue sewitz , 561 F.3d at 238 ( citing United States v. Lock e , 529 U.S. 89, 111 (2000)). Thecate g ories of pre-e mption are not (continued...) 115 p o tential ap p li ca n ts – bu rde n s n o t co n tem p lat ed b yC o n g ress” ). If H a z leto n ’s o rd in a n c e is p e rm iss ib le, th e n e a c h a n d e v e rysta te and l ocal i t yw ould b e fr ee t o i m pl ement s i m i l ars chemes for i nves t i gat i ng, pr os ecut i ng, and adj udi cat i ng w hethe ran
e m p lo y e r h a s e m p lo y e d u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n s . S e e R o we v . N. H. Mo tor T ra n sp . A ss’n , 552 U
. S. 364, 373 ( 2008) ( r eas oni ng t hat al l ow i ng one s t at e t o i m pl ement i t s ow n m oni t or i ng s y s t em

“ w o u ld a llo w o th e r S tate s to d o th e sa m e . . . ea silylea d [ in g ] to a pat chw or k of st at e . . . l aw s , rul es , and re gul at i ons ”)
. A s not ed
a b o v e , m a n ys ta te s a n d lo c a l itie s h a v e a lr e a d ytr ie d . A p a tch w o rk o f

sta te a n d lo c a l sy ste m s e a c h in d e p e n d e n tly
m o n ito rin g , inv e stig a tin g , an d u lt im a telyd e c id in g – a ll
co n cu rren tl y w ith the f

ed era l go v ern m en t – w h ethe r em p loy ers have hi r ed unauthor i zed a l i ens coul d not pos s i bl y be i n gr eat er confl i ctw i t h C ongr es s ’ s i nt entfori t s car eful l ycr aft ed pr os ecut i on and adj ud i cat i on s y s t em t o m i ni m i ze the bur den i m po sed on em ploy ers . 34(...continued) 34 “ ri g idly dis tin c t. I

nd e e d, fi e ld p re -emption

may beun de rs too d a s a specie s of conf

lict pre-emption: A st ate law that falls within a pre
empted fie ld conflicts with Congress’ intent (e ither express or plainly implied) to ex clude stateregulation.” Engli sh , 496 U.S. at 79 n.5. I f Congress, in ser vice of the g oal of minimiz ing employer burd e n, int e nd e d f

or its a dju dic ativ esyste m to bee xclu siv e , IRCA would occupy

the field of prosecutingand adjudicating e mployers for the hiring of

unauthorized aliens. Throughout its brief, Hazleton makes much of the fa ct 35 that the IIRAO does not ac tually “coerce ” employers to use EVerify (or a s we discuss later , to verify the work a

uthorization of ind epe nd e nt c ontr a c tor s) be c a us ee ve n th ou gh s a feha

rb or is provided only

to those employers who useE-Verify , employers a re g iven the opportunity

to terminate a

n unauthorized alien be fore sanctions are imposed, thus makinga saf e har bor less esse ntial. The a rgument is the prover

bial “re d herring.” It is clear that Hazleton significa ntlyincentivizes use of EVerify . However one c hara cterizes thi s coercion, it is inconsist ent wi th c on gre ssi on a l inte nt. Th eI IRA O p lainly a lters theri skine ss of choosingnot to use E-Ve rify (or c hoosing not to verify the work authorization of independent contrac tors). The a nx iety associate d with these choic es is itself a burden from which Congress intende d (continued...) 116 Second, t he I I R A O contr avene s c o n g r es s i onal obj ect i ves byal t er i ng the empl oy m entver i fi cat i on s cheme cr eat ed by I R C A , and s uppl ement ed byI I R I R A and s ubs equentl egi s l at i on. W hi l e I R C A af

fords an af

fi r m at i ve def

ens e t o anyempl oy er
w h o u se s th e I-9 p ro c e ss to v e rif yth e w o rk a u th o riz a tio n o f its empl oy ees , t he I I R A O does not . T he I I R A O pr ovi des i t s s afe harboronl yt o empl oy er s w ho us e E-V er i fy
. I n t hi s w ay , t he I I R A O s i gni fi cant l yal t er s t he r i s k cal cul us forempl oy er s , and
c o e rc e s u se o f

E -V e r if y. T h e IIR A O a lso d ire c tlyc o m p e ls 35(...continued) 35 to protect e mployers. See, e .g. , H.R. Rep. No. 99-682(I), at 16 (limiti ngthe scopeof employers’ responsibilities to reducethe “conc ern[s]” of “ca

utious employers” ).

117 C i t y ag en cies , C i t ycontr act or s , and al l empl oy er s t w i ce f ound gui l t y of vi ol at i ng t he I I R A O t o us e E-V er i fy
. T hes e pr ovi s i ons
c o n tra d ict c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t f o r E
- V e r if

yto re m a in f

u lly
v o lu n tar yf

o r th e v a st m a

jo rityo f e m p lo y e rs – a d e c is io n th a t,
once a gai n, bal ance s s eeki ng eff icacyi n empl oy m ent author i za t i o n v e r i f

i c a t i o n wi th th e goal s of m i ni m i zi ng empl oy er b u rd e n a n d p re v e n tin g e m p lo ym e n t d is c ri m in a tio n . See G ei er , 5 2 9 U .S . at 8 7 8 (f

in d in g sta te la w im p o s in g a sp e c if ic
re q u ire m e n t co n f

lict p re -e m p ted w h e re C o n g re ss “ d e lib e ra tely
so u g h t variety ” a n d to p rov id e “ sev era l diffe ren t” op ti o n s). S im il arly , theyco n tr av en e c o n g ression al i n tent fo r th e I-9 p ro c e s s to s e rv e a s a u n iv e rs a l p ro te c tio n a g a in s t s a n c tio n s . A s P l ai nti ffs po i nted ou t at oral argum ent, if C on gress
w er e s ol el yconce r ned w i t h ens ur i ng t hatno unauthor i zed a l i en
evers ecur ed empl oym en t in the U ni t ed St at es , i tw oul d have and coul d have f

ound a bett erm echan ism forver i fy i ng
em ploym ent au t ho ri zat i on t han t he I- 9 p rocess . T he I- 9 p rocess i s notfool pr oof, and y et i tr emai ns t he def aul templ oy m ent118 v e rif ica tio n sy ste m tw e n ty -f o u r y e a rs a f

ter IR C A ’s e n a c tm e n t. T hi s r e f l e c t s Con g r e s s ’ s d e t e r mi n a t i o n t h a tE- Ver i f y , whi ch
a d v a n c e s ce rta in f

e d e ra l o b jec tiv e s to th e d e trim e n t o f o th e rs, is
n o t yet a p p ro p ri a te f

o r m a n d a te d u s e . A t l eas t for cert ai n cat egor i es of empl oy ees , s tudi es have
s how n t hatE
- V er i fyi s m or e ef fec t i ve than th e I-9 pr oces s for det er m i ni ng w hetheran empl oy ee i s authori zed t o w or k i n t he U n ite d S ta te s . See U
. S
. C i t i zenship and Im m i grat i on S ervi ces, R epor tt o C on g ress o n the Basi c Pi l otP r ogr am , J une 2004, at 3 ( T he pr ogr am “r educe d unauthor i zed em pl oy m entamong par t i ci pat i ng empl oy er s byper m i t t i ng empl oy ers t o det er m i ne
w h e th e r th e in f

o rm a tio n p ro v id e d b ye m p lo y e e s o n I-9 f o rm s is
co n sist en t w ith inf

o rm ati o n o n S S A an d D H S d atab ase s. ”). Howev e r , b e c a u s e o f

p r o b l e ms wi t h t he r e l e v a n td a t a b a s e s , EV er ifyhas been a l ar m i ngl yi neff ect i ve i n ver i fy i ng t he empl oym entauthor i zat i on of w or k- author i zed a l i ens and
n a tu ra lize d c iti z e n s, a n d th u s h a s e f f e c tiv e ly r e s u lted in d is c ri m in a tio n a g a in s t th e s e g ro u p s . S e e i d. (“[T ] he t ent at i ve
n o n co n firm ati o n rate w as u n ac ce p tablyh igh fo r fo reign -bo rn
w ork- author iz ed empl oy ees and w as hi ghert han des i r abl e for U
. S.
- bor n empl oy ees . T hi s cr eat ed bur dens forempl oy ees and119 em ploy ers . . . and l ed to unint enti on a l d i scr i m i nati on against f o re ig n -b o rn p e rs o n s .” ). As o f t h e l a s tc o n g r e s s i o n a l l y - ma n d a t e d e v a l u a t i o n o fEV erify in 20 0 7 , fo reign -bo rn w o rk-a u tho ri ze d em p loy ee s w ere
s t i l l t hi r t y t i m es mor e l i k e l y t o r ece i ve t ent at i ve
n o n c o n f ir m a tio n s th a n e m p lo y e e s b o rn in th e U n ite d S ta te s , s ee W e s ta t, F i ndi ngs of the W eb B as i c P i l o t E va luat i on (“ 2007 F i ndi ngs ”) ( Sept ember 2007) , at xxv, and for ei gn- bor n U ni t ed St at es cit i zens w er e s even t i m es m or e l i kel yt o r ece i ve
err oneous t ent at i ve nonconf i r m at i ons t han w or k- author i zed
a lie n s , s ee i d. T hi s s tudyt hus m ade cl eart hat“furt her i m pr ovement s ar e nee ded” be for e E-V er i fycoul d be made
m an d ato ry. S ee i d. , atxxi
. A ccor di ngl y , t hr ough var i ous expans i ons of t he pr ogr am, C ongr ess h as cont i nual l yr equi r ed t hatE
- V er i fybe s t r i ct l yvol unt aryfort he vas t m aj or i t yof
em ploy ers . S e e , e .g , D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity A p p ro p ria tio n s A c t, 20 1 0 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 1 -8 3 , § 5 4 7 , 1 2 3 S tat. 2177; C ons ol i dat ed Secur i t y , D i s as t erA s s i s t ance , and C ont i nui ng A ppr opr i at i ons Act , 2 0 0 9 , Pub
. L. No. 110- 329, D i v. A , § 143, 122 St at . 3574, 3580 ( 2008) ; B as i c Pi l otPr ogr am E xt ens i on and E xpans i on A ct of 2003, Pub. L
. N o. 108- 156, §§120 2, 3, 117 St at . 1944 ( 2003) ; B as i c Pi l ot E xt ens i on A ct of 2001, P u b
. L
. N o . 1 0 7 -12 8 , § 2 , 1 1 5 S tat . 2 4 0 7 (20 0 2 ). T he vol unt ar i nes s of the s y s t em prot ect s empl oy er s as
w el l as empl oy ees . E
- V er i fyhas cos t s , i ncl udi ng s et - up and tr a in in g e x p e n s e s . See 2007 F i ndi ngs , at x x v i; E dm onds on , 594 F. 3d at756 ( E
- V eri fy has s i gni fi cantcos t s “i n t he form of i mp l e me n t a t i o n a n d t r a i n i n g e x p e n s e s . ” )
. G i v e n t h e p r o b l e ms
w ith th e sy ste m , the se c o sts a re n o t y e t a r e liab le in v e stm e n t. M or eover , E -V er i fycont i nues t o oper at e on a tr i al bas i s , and
a b se n t ac tio n b yC o n g re ss , it s s tatu to r y a u th o riz a tio n w ill te rm in a te in 2 0 1 2
. See D e p a rtm e n t o f H o m e lan d S e c u rity A p p ro p ria tio n s A c t, 20 1 0 , P u b . L . N o . 1 1 1 -8 3 , § 5 4 7 , 1 2 3 S tat. 2 1 7 7 . M a n d a tin g E -V e rif yn o w th e re f

o re re q u ire s e m p lo y e rs to in c u r c o sts th a t m a yb e e n tirelyw o rth les s in th e lo n g -ru n . In a ll th e se w a y s, C o n g re ss ’s r e f u sa l to m a k e E -V e rif

ym a n d a to ryis
cons i s t entw i t h i t s obj ect i ve of ens ur i ng t hat I R C A i m pos es t he “mi ni m um bur den neces s ary . . . t o be effec t i ve. ” See 132 C ong. R ec. H 10583- 01 ( dai l yed. O ct . 15, 1986) ( s t at ement of R ep. B ry an t)
. A ddi t i onal l y , H azl et on’ s s cheme i ncr eas es t he bur den on i nter st at e em ploy ers byfai l i ng t o p rovi de safe h arbor for tho se121 w ho us e t he I- 9 pr oces s . A s t he courtexpl ai ned i n E dm onds on ,

“ [ b ]ym a k in g th e I-9 sy ste m a u n if o rm n a tio n a l re q u ire m e n t, C o n g re ss lim ited th e c o m p lian c e b u rd e n o n in ter sta te
corpor at i ons w hi l e fac i l i t at i ng uni for m enfor cement . ” 594 F. 3d
a t 7 6 7 . A u n if

o rm sy ste m re d u c e s c o sts f o r e m p lo y e rs w ith
m ul t i pl e l ocat i ons t hr oughoutt he countr yby en su ri ng t hatt he
sam e hu m an r esources proced ures can be used i n all l ocati on s. H az let o n ’s sch em e de n ies interst ate em p loy ers w h o u se th e I-9 p ro c e ss th e b e n e f

its o f u n if o rm ity . In ter sta te e m p lo y e rs w ith lo c a tio n s in H a z leto n (w h o w is h to e n su re sa f e h a rb o r in a ll lo c a tio n s) w o u ld e ith e r h a v e to a d h e re to d if f e re n t re g u latio n s in d if f e re n t lo c a tio n s , o r u s e E -V e ri f yin a ll lo c a tio n s . I n i t s defe ns e, H azl et on ar gues t hatt he othercour t s t hat h a v e c o n sid e re d th e q u e stio n o f sta tes ’ a n d lo c a lit ies ’ p o w e r to
m a n d a t e E- Ver i f

yh a v e c o n c l u d e d t h a tt h e r e i s i n s u f f i c i ent evi dence t hatC ongr es s ’ s r efus al to all ow t he fe der al g o v e r n m e n t to m a k e E -V e rif ym a n d a to ryre f

lec ts a n in ten t to depr i ve s t at es and l ocal i t i es of the pow ert o do s o. I n C hi canos P or L a C au sa , fo r in sta n c e , th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e N in th C i r cui tconcl uded that an A r i zona l aw t hat m ade use of E-V er i fy
m andat or yw as notconfl i ctpr e-e m pt ed. I texpl ai ned thatt he122 fac t t hat“C ongr es s m ade pa r t i ci pat i on i n E
- V er i fyvol unt aryat t he nat i onal l evel
. . . di d noti n and of it s el f i ndi cat e that C o n g r e s s i n t e n d e d t o p r e v e n ts t a t e s f r o m ma k i n g p a r t i c i p a t i on
m andat or y . ” See C hicanos P or L a C au sa , 558 F. 3d at866- 67. Si m i l ar l y , i n G r ay , t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he E as t ern D i s t r i ctof M i s s our i decl i ned t o i nt erpr et“C ongr es s ’ s deci s i on nott o m ake [E -V erify ] m an d atoryas r es tr i cti n g a state o r l o ca l go v ern m en t’ s author i t y under t he pol i ce pow er s . ” G r ay , 2008 W L 294294, at *19. T hatcour tr eas oned thata l ocal i t y ’ s m andat i ng of E-V er i fy i s cons i s t entw i t h t he fe der al goal of “gr eat er enfor cement . ” I d. T h e se d e c isio n s, h o w e v e r, f a il t o a f f o rd p ro p e r w e ig h t to t he purpos es under l y i ng C ongr es s ’ s deci s i on t o r et ai n E
- V er i fy as a voluntaryprogram . D espi t e i t s ad v a ntages, E -V eri fyal so h a s sign i fi cant pr ob l em s, and accordingl ym and at i ng i t s use i n t e r f e r e s wi t h t h e b a l a n c i n g o f i n t e r e s t s e mb o d i e d i n I RC A. T he conc l us i on t hatm andat i ng E -V erifyi s cons i s t entw i t h t he goal of “gr eat erenforce m ent ” thus s i m pl yi gnor es t hat enfor cementi s notC ongr es s ’ s onl ycon ce rn. A gai n, H azl et on has pl ace d a pr i or i t yon det err i ng empl oy m entof unauthor i zed al i ens , butfai l ed t o conce r n i t s elf w i t h t he cos t s i t s or di nance i m po ses on em ploy ers and on w ork-aut ho ri zed ali ens.123 T h e re is ye t a n o th e r w a yin w h ich th e IIR A O o b stru c ts t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a l p u rp o s e s u n d e r l y i n g I RC A. T h e I I RA O
coer ces empl oy er s t o ver i fyt he w ork author i zat i on of in d e p e n d e n t co n tra c to rs, e v e n th o u g h C o n g re ss p u rp o se ly excl uded i ndepende ntcontr act or s fr om IR C A ’ s ver i fi cat i on
r e q u i r e me n t s . Al t h o u g h e mp l o y e r s d o f a c e l i a b i l i t yu n d e rI RCA fo r kn o w in g ly u ti li zing the s erv ices o f ind ep en d en t con tr ac tors
w h o a re unau t ho ri zed ali ens, t heyare not requi red t o actual ly
v e rif yc o n tra c to rs’ w o rk e lig ib ili ty , as th e ym u st w ith
em p loy ee s . S ee 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324a( a)
. T hus , empl oy er s can ut i l i ze c ont r act or s ’ s erv i ces w i t houti ncurr i ng t he expe ns e of
v e r i f i c a t i o n , o rt h e a n x i e t yo f p o t e n t i a l s a n c t i o n s . T h e I I RA O, on t he otherhand, does notdi s t i ngui s h betw een e m pl oy ees and i ndepende n tc o n tr act or s , and thus eff ect i vel ycoer ces bus i nes s es to v e ri f yth e irc o n tr a c to rs ’ a u th o ri z a tio n . See IIR A O § 4 A
. In
so d o ing , the IIR A O fu n d am en tal ly a lte rs a b u sine ss’s
r el at i ons hi p w i t h i t s contr act or s and underm i nes t he ca r eful bal anci ng of obj ect i ves C ongr es s i nt ended. In d r a f ti n g IR C A , C o n g re ss e x p licitlyd e c lin e d to
s anct i on em p loy er s bas ed on the w or k author i zat i on s t atus of “ca s ual hi r es ( i
. e. , t hos e thatdo not i nvol ve t he exi s t ence of an124 empl oy er/ empl oy ee r el at i ons hi p)
. ” H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99- 682( I ) , at 11. T hi s w as notan unr eas oned choi ce, but par t of the cr aft i ng
o f t h e s t a tu t e t o mi n i mi z e t h e b u r d e n p l a c e d o n e mp l o y e r s . As t he courtexpl ai ned i n E dm onds on , “[e ] m ploy ers ar e not
r equi r ed [unde rfede r al l aw ] t o ver i fy t he w or k el i gi bi l i t yof i ndepende ntco n tr ac tors” b ec au se it“w o u ld inc rea se th e b ur dens
on bus i nes s . ” 594 F. 3d at767. B us i nes s es ut i l i ze i ndepende nt contr act or s , i n par t , t o r educe t he cos t s and l i abi l i t i es as s oci at ed
w i t h pr ocur i n g laborw hen an e ndur i ng and s t ructur ed relati o n sh ip is no t nee d ed
. C o m p ell ing b u sine sses to co n ce rn them selv es w ith the w o rk a u tho ri za ti o n statu s o f c o n tr ac tors
a lte rs th is re la tio n s h ip , a n d a ls o ra is e s c o s ts . I r oni cal ly , the I I R A O i s equal l ypr obl emat i c forpr ee m p tio n p u rp o se s b e c a u se it o n ly c o e rc e s b u t d o e s n o t d ire c tly req u ir e v erificati o n o f in d ep en d en t con tr ac to rs’ w o rk
a u th o riz a tio n , w h ile im p o sin g sa n c tio n s o n e m p lo y e rs if th e ir contr act or s ar e unauthor i zed. A l t hough ea rl i erver s i ons of the bi l l s t hat b ec am e IRC A di d notr equi r e empl oy er s t o us e an empl oym entver i fi cat i on s y s t em, C ongr es s u l t i m at el ydeci ded t hat a m andat or yand uni for m l yus ed empl oy m entver i fi cat i on
s y s t e m m u st be a c ount erpar t of empl oy er s anct i ons . A bs entt hatPlaintif fs a lso arguetha

t th eIIRA O s tand s a s a

n obs ta c le 36 to IRCA in several other

ways. They

argue that it: require s employers to verify

the employ

ment authorization of casual domestic labore rs, another group purpose fully

excluded from IRCA’s verification requirements; requires unions to verif y the wo rk a uth orizatio n o f m e mbers they re fer f or wo rk in c e rt a in ins tanc e s, wh e n unio ns op e ratin gin t his c a pa c ity werea lso purposef ully excluded from IRCA’s verification requirements; and denies to employees the“cure period” available under federal law to establish work authorization afte r re ceivinga tentative nonconfirmation from E-Verify . Hazleton contests that the I IRAO’s employ

ment provisions operatein these wa y s, and the languag e of theordinanc e in ambiguous. Furthermore, thedistrict court did not make a

ny finding s that would allow us to resolve these c laims. Accordingly , we do not fa ctor theseconsiderations into our pre- emption analysis. As we haveexplained, “hy pothetical” c onflicts usually will not support a finding ofpreemption. See Sc hneidewind, 485 U.S. at 310. 125 r equi r eme n t, C ongr es s concl uded, empl oy er s w oul d t oo oft en

“ g u e s s ” a b o u t th e ir p ro s p e c tiv e h ir e s ’ w o rk a u th o ri z a tio n . See H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99- 682( I ) , at 2 3 (“[ T ] he bi l l does pr ovi de
s ubs t ant i al pr ot ect i ons agai ns tdi s cr i m i nat i on i n t he form of a uni for m ver i fi cat i on pr oces s foral l new hi r es . ”) ; S. R ep. N o. 99- 132, at23 ( “To be nondi s cr i m i nat or y. . . anyempl oy ee
e l i gi bi l i t y s y s t e m mus t a pp l ye qu a l l yt o e a c h membe rof t he U
. S.
w o rk f o rc e .”). G u e ss w o rk u n a v o id a b lyy ield s d isc rim in a tio n in h irin g , an d th a t re su lt c o u ld n o t b e m o re a t o d d s w ith
c o n g re ss io n a l in ten t. 36 H a zl et on ’s fai l ure t o b al ance it s sanct i on s w i t h an tidi s cr im i nat i on pr ot ect i ons i s a fi nal ar ea i n w hi ch the126 e m p lo ym e n t p ro v isio n s o f th e IIR A O sig n if ica n tlyc o n f

lict w ith I R C A
. C ongr es s w as cl eart hat“a mechani s m t o r emedyany dis cri m i nati on t hat [occurs because o f em ploy er s ancti on s] m ust be a pa r tof” empl oy ers anct i ons l egi s l at i on. H
. R
. R ep. N o. 99- 6 8 2 (I), a t 2 2 . H a z leto n c o n ten d s th a t IR C A ’s a n tidi s cr i m i nat i on pr ovi s i on ful l yacc om pl i s hes t he congr es s i onal goal of det err i ng unl aw ful di s cr i m i nat i on, and that i ti s not compe l l e d t o d u p l i c a t e f e d e r a l e f f o r t s . Haz l e t o n mi s s e s t he p o in t. W hi l e dr aft i ng I R C A , C ongr es s hear d t es t i m onyt hat i m pos i ng empl oy ers anct i ons w oul d cr eat e ec onom i c i ncent i ves f o r em p lo y e rs to d isc rim in a te a g a in st w o rk e rs w h o a p p e a re d to b e o f f o reign o ri g in. I f h ir ing u n a u tho ri ze d ali en s w ere p en ali ze d, butdi s cr i m i nat i ng against au tho ri ze d fo reign w o rke rs
w er e not , empl oy er s m i ghtr at i onal l ychoos e nott o hi r e any one
w ho appea r ed “f

or ei gn” i n an eff

or t t o avoi d ent i r el yt he thr eat
o f s a n c tio n s . See, e. g. , 132 C ong. R ec. S16879- 01 ( dai l yed. O ct . 17 , 1 9 86) ( s t at ement of Sen. H ar t ) ( “The em pl oy er
s anct i ons i n t he l egi s l at i on w i l l undoubt edl yactas an i ncent i ve f o r b u sin e ss e s to ‘p lay i t sa f e ’ a n d re f

u se to h ire in d iv id u a ls
w hos e s t atus m aybe i n ques t i on. T hi s w oul d m ean that127 [B ] l acks , H i s pani cs , and A s i an s w oul d encount ernew di ffi cul t i es i n get t i ng hi r ed. ”)
. C ons equent l y , C ongr es s deci ded t hatI R C A m us tal l ow j udges t o i m pos e on empl oy er s w ho di s cr i m i nat e i n hi r i ng penal t i es of the ex a c ts a me m agni t ude as im p o s e d o n e m p lo y e rs w h o h ir e u n a u th o ri z e d a lie n s . C om pa re 8 U
. S
. C
. § 1 3 2 4 a(e )(4)(A )(i )-( ii i) w i th 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 4 b (g )( 2 )( B )( iv )( I) -( II I)
. T he I I R A O ’ s empl o y m ent pr ovi s i ons ups ett hi s car eful bal ance . B yi m pos ing addi t i onal s anct i ons on empl oy er s w ho hi r e unauthor i zed a l i ens , w h il e notpenal i zi ng t hos e w ho di s cr i m i n ate, H azl et on has el ect ed t o pl ace al l of i t s w ei ghton
one s i de of the r egul at or ys cal e. T hi s cr eat es t he exa cts i tuat i on t hatC o n g res s fea r ed: a s y s t em under w hi ch empl oy er s m i ght qui t e r at i onal l ychoos e t o erron t he s i de of di s cr i m i nat i ng
a g a in st jo b a p p lica n ts th e yp e rc e iv e to b e f o re ig n . T h is is i ncons i s t ent w i t h I R C A and ther efor e ca nnotbe t ol er at ed under t he Supr emacyC l aus e. H azl et on at t empt s t o parr ythe thrus t of thi s ar gum entby agai n r el y i ng on t he dec i s i ons i n C hicanos P or L a C au sa and G r ay . T h o s e c o u r t s r e

j e c t e d t h e a r g u me n tt h a tl i c e n s i n g l a ws t hatr evoked the l i cens es of bus i nes s es w ho empl oy ed128 unauthor i zed a l i ens w er e l i kel y t o i ncr eas e di s cr i m i nat i on, and
w oul d contr avene I R C A abs ent an ant i
- di s cr i m i nat i on
c o m p o n e n t. W e b e liev e th o se d e c isio n s u n d e rv a lu e th e e m p h a sis C ongr e s s p l a c e d o n p r e v e n t i n g d i s c r i mi n a t i o n , a n d t h e p a i ns t aki ng car e C o n g res s t ook t o achi eve thatobj ect i ve. For exampl e, t he court s i n bot h C hi canos P o r L a C aus a and G r ay d e m a n d e d p r o o f th a t e m p lo ye r s a n c ti o n s r e s u lt i n di s cr i m i nat i on. T hat i s puzzl i ng beca us e C ongr es s has al r eady
a d d r e s s e d t h a t q u e s t i o n . Al t h o u g h Con g r e s s c o u l d not have b ee n ce rt ain th at o n e-side d san cti o n s w o u ld lead to f u ture d isc rim in a tio n w h e n it en a c ted IR C A , itw a s s u f f icie n tly tr o u b le d b yth e lik e lih o o d to c o m m it to p re v e n ta tiv e a c tio n . See H. R. Re p . No
. 9 9
- 6 8 2 ( I I ) , a t4 , r e p r i n t e d i n 1 9 8 6 U. S
. C. C. A. N. 5757 ( T he “H ous e of R epr es ent at i ves r ecogni zed [ t he] pot ent i al forthi s unfortunat e c au se and e ffe ctr el at i ons hi p betw een
s anct i ons enfo r c e me n t a n d r es ul t i ng empl oy m ent di s cr i m inat i on”)
. N ot abl y , C ongr es s al s o r equi r ed the C o m p tr o ll er G en era l t o rep o rt , three y e a rs af ter IR C A ’s
e n a c tm e n t, o n w h e th e r e m p lo y e r sa n c tio n s h a d re su lted in d iscr i m i nat i on. T he C om pt r ol l erG ener al concl uded that129 e m p lo y e r s a n c tio n s h a d c a u s e d “ w id e s p re a d d is c ri m in a tio n .” U
. S. G ov’ tA ccount abi l i t yO ffi ce, G A O / T
- G G D
- 90- 31, Tes t i m ony on I

m m igr at i on R ef

or m : E m pl oyerSanct i ons and the Q ues t i on of

D is cr i m i nat i on (1 9 9 0 ). C o n g re ss sta ted re p e a ted lyth a t co u n ter v a ili n g a n tidis cri m i na tion p rot ect i on s m ustbe a pa r tof anyempl oy er
s a n c tio n s le g is la tio n , s ee H .R . R e p . N o . 9 9 -6 8 2 (II), a t 4 (“[ I]f t her e i s t o be s anct i ons enfor cement and l i abi l i t y , t her e mustbe
an equal l

y s tr ong an d r eadi l yavai l abl e r emedyi f r es ul t i ng
e mp l o yme n td i s c r i mi n a t i o n o c c u r s . ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d ) , a n d we th in k th is ju st a s tru e w h e n sta tes a n d lo c a lit ies re g u late in th is
ar ea. T o be cons i s t entw i t h fede r al l aw , s t at es and l ocal i t i es t hat
us e r egul at or y enac t m ent s t o s anct i on empl oy er s w ho have be en fou nd gui l tyof

e m ploy i ng un authori zed ali ens un der I R C A m ust i m pos e s anct i ons of equal s eve r i t y on empl oy er s found gui l t yof di s cr i m i nat i ng. H azl et on at t empt s t o s hi eld i t s l egi s l at i ve ef for t s fr om p re -e m p tio n b a s e d o n th e d o c tr in e o f “ c o n c u rr e n t e n f

o rc e m e n t,” b u t th is c o u ld n o t b e les s p e rsu a si v e . A s H a z leto n itse lf acknow l edges , “conc ur r entenfor cementact i vi t y i s author i zed”
on l yw here “st at e enf

orcem ent act i vit i es d o n o t i m pai rf eder al130 re g u la to ry in ter e sts . ” H azl et on’ s B r . 57 ( quot i ng G onz al es v. C ity o f P e o ria , 7 2 2 F .2 d 4 6 8 , 4 7 4 (9 th C ir . 1 9 8 3 ), over r ul ed on othergr ounds by , H

odgers - D ur

gi n v. de l a V

i na , 199 F. 3d 1037 ( 9 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 9 ) ) ( e mph a s i s a d d e d )
. Haz l e t o n c l a i ms t hat t he I I R A O s at i s fi es t hi s s t andard beca us e “the empl oy m ent pr ovi s i o n s . . . wer e d r a f t e d wi t h me t i c u l o u s c a r e t o ma t ch t he t er m i nol ogyand s cope of fede r al l aw . ” H az le t on’ s B r . 58. G iven o u r discu ssion thu s f a r, w e n ee d n o t belab o r he re expl ai ni n g w hyt hi s as s er t i on i s w r ong. Si m pl yput , H azl et on has enac t ed a regul at or ys cheme t hati s des i gned t o fur t hert he sin g le o b

jec tiv e o f

f e d e ra l law th a t it d e e m s im p o rta n t – ensuri ng un authori zed al i ens do no t w ork i n the U nit ed S t at es. Ithas ch o se n t o d i sr egard C on gress ’s otherobj ect i ves – pr ot ect i ng l aw ful i m m i gr ant s and other s fr om empl oy m ent di s cr i m i nat i on, and mi ni m i zi ng t he bur den i m pos ed on empl oy er s . R egul at or y“che r r ypi cki ng” i s notconcurr ent enfor cement , and i ti s notcons t i tut i onal l yper m i t t ed. N ot abl y , t hi s i s not t he fi r s t t i m e thatw e have confr ont ed a l ocal l aw t hats kew s t he fe der al gov ern m ent ’ s car eful b a lan c in g o f

o b jec tiv e s in th e re g u latio n o f a lien e m p lo ym e n t. W e addr es s ed a si m i l ar s i tuat i on overt hi r t yy ear s ago i n R og ers131 v. Lars on , 563 F. 2d 617 ( 1977)
. T her e, t he G overnm entof the V ir gi n I s l ands had ena ct ed a l aw w hi ch ca l l ed fort he
r e p lac e m e n t o f

c e rta in n o n im m ig ra n t alie n w o rk e rs w ith qual i fi ed ci t i zens or l aw ful per m anent r es i dent w or ker s , i f and
w hen s uch w or ker s beca m e ava i l abl e. N oni m m i gr antal i ens br ought s ui t ar gui ng t hat t he t err i t or i al l aw w as pr e- empted by t he I N A , and i n par t i cul arbyfede r al r egul at i ons guara nt eei ng noni m m i gr antal i ens ’ empl oy m entfordefi ni t e per i ods of t i m e. W e a g re e d
. I n s t r i ki ng dow n t he V i r gi n I s l ands ’ l egi s l at i ve ef for tas
a n o b s t a c l e t o t h e c o n g r e s s i o n a l p u rp o s e s u n d e r l y i n g t h e I NA,
w e made cl eart hatt he fa ct t hat t he tw o s t atut or ys chemes s har ed pur po s e s i n c o mmon d i d n o t s a v e t h e t e r r i t o r i a l l a w f r o m pr eempt i on. R ather , t he l aw s w er e di r ect l y at odds w i t h eac h ot her b e c a u se th e y “ str[ u c k ] th e b a lan c e b e tw e e n [ th e ] g o a ls di ffe r ent l y . ” I

d. at626. T he V i r gi n I s l ands s t atut e s t ruck the b a la n c e “ m o re in th e d ir e c tio n o f p ro te c tio n o f

c itiz e n -w o rk e rs ,” and fe deral l aw s t ruck i tm or e i n t he di r ect i on of pr ot ect i on of
e m p lo y e rs a n d a lie n w o rk e rs . I d. “B eca us e of the di ffe r ent emphasi s t he tw o s t atut or ys chemes pl ace [d] on t he purpos es of j ob pr ot ect i on and an a dequat e l aborfor ce, ” the V i r gi n I s l ands132 p ro v is io n w a s in v a lid u n d e r t h e S u p r e m a c y C la u s e . I d. T he
s ame i s j us tas t rue her e. I t i s , of cour s e, notourj ob t o s i ti n j udgm entof w hether sta te a n d lo c a l f

ru stra tio n a b o u t f

e d e ra l im m ig ra tio n p o licyis
w arr ant ed. W e ar e, how ever , r equi r ed t o i nt er vene w hen s t at es and l ocal it i es di r ect l yunder m i ne the fe der al obj ect i ves embodi ed i n s t atut es enac t ed byC ongr ess. The em pl oy m ent pr ovi s i ons of t he I I R A O “s t and[] as an o b st acl e t o t he
a c c o m p lis h m e n t a n d e x e c u tio n ” o f IR C A ’s o b

je c tiv e s , Hi nes , 312 U
. S. at67, and thus ar e pr e- empt ed. 2. H ous i ng Pr ov i s i ons O urfi nal i nqui r yaddr es s es Pl ai nt i ffs ’ cl ai m t hatt he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons of the I I R A O and the R O ar e pr e- empt ed. T he di s t r i ctcour tagr eed w i t h Pl ai nt i ffs , and s o do w e. B efore delvi ng i nto the sub st ance o f t his analy si s, how ever , w e mustfi r s tcons i derw hethert he pr es um pt i on ag ainstpr e- empt i on appl i es t o t he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons . T he di s t r i ct cour t di d not di s t i ngui s h betw een t he empl oy m en t a nd h o u sin g p ro v isio n s in a d d re ss in g th e p re su m p tio n ; itsu m m a rily concl uded thatbot h oper at e i n the fi el d of “i m m i gr at i on, ” and th a t b e c a u s e o f

th e “ h isto ryo f

sig n if ica n t f e d e ra l p re se n c e ” in133 th a t a re a , th e p re s u m p tio n d id n o t a p p ly. Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at518 n. 41. W e have expl ai ned w h y tha tconcl us i on w as
err oneous as appl i ed t o t he empl oy m entpr ovi s i ons , w hi ch under D eC anas , fa ll w i t hi n t he s t at es ’ hi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s . T he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons , how ever , r ai s e a ve r ydi ffe r ent i s s ue. A s t he D istric t C o u rt f

o r th e N o rth e rn D istric t o f T e x a s e x p lain e d in Fa rm ers B ra n ch III

, “[l ] ocal r egul at i o n thatcondi t i ons t he abi l i t yt o ent er p ri v ate c ont r actfors hel t eron fede r al i m m i gr at i on s t atus i s of a f undament al l ydi ffe r ent natur e than .

. . r e s t r i c t i o n s o n e m p l o ym e n t . ”

___ F
. S u p p . 2 d

___ , 2 0 1 0 WL 1141398, at*16. Th e p a rt i e s c h a r a c t e r i z e t h e h o u s i n g p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e RO and the I I R A O i n s t ar kl ydi ffe r entt er m s . H azl et on m ai nt ai ns t hatt he hous i ng pr ovi s i ons r e g u l at e r ent al acc om m odat i ons , and thu s, li k e the em p lo y m e n t p rov isi o n s, fa ll w ith in the stat e’s hi s t or i c pol i ce pow er s . Pl ai nt i ffs , on t he ot herhand, ar gue that t h ese pr ovi s i ons r egul at e w ho m ay l i ve i n H azl et on bas ed on im m igrati o n statu s, an d that reg u lat ing w h ich a li en s are per m i t t ed t o r es i de i n t he U ni t ed St at es i s a hi s t or i cal l yfede r al f u n c tio n f a r b e y o n d th e p o lic e p o w e rs o f a n ys ta te . A l t ho u g h we r e a l i z e t h a ta s t a t e c e r t a i n l yc a n , and134 p resu m ab lysh o u ld, r eg u lat e re n tal a c c o m m o d ati o n s to e n su re t he hea l th and saf

etyof i t s r es i dent s , and thats uch r egul at i on
m ayp erm issi b lya f

f e c t th e righ ts of

p erso n s in the co u n try
u n la w f u lly, s ee D eC anas , 424 U
. S. at 355, w e ca nnotbur your head s i n the sand o stri ch-l i ke i gn ori ng t he real i t y of w hat these ordi nan ces a ccom pli sh. T hroug h it s hou si ng provis i on s, H azl et on at t empt s t o r egul at e r es i dence bas ed so lel yon i m m i gr at i on s t atus . D eci di ng w hi ch al i ens m ayl i ve i n t he U ni t ed St at es h as al w ay s been the pr er ogat i ve of the fe der al governm ent . H azl et on purpos eful l ychos e t o ent ert hi s ar ea of “sig n ifi cantfede r al pr es ence . ” Locke , 529 U
. S. at108. A ccor di ngl y , w e w i l l notpr es um e nonpr e- empt i on. T he r es t of our anal y s i s fl ow s di r ect l y fro m o ur concl us i on t hatH azl et on’ s hous i ng pr ovi s i ons r egul at e w hi ch ali en s m ayli v e the re. U n d er D eC anas , a s t at e orl ocal it y m ay not“r egul at e i m m i gr at i on, ” w hi ch the Su p rem e C our thas defi ned as any at t empt t o det er m i ne “w ho s houl d ors houl d not be admi t t ed i nt o t he countr y , and the condi t i ons underw hi ch a l egal entr antm ayr emai n. ” D eC anas , 424 U
. S
. at355. Such pow er i s del egat ed by t he C ons t i tut i on excl us i vel yt o t he fe der al governm ent , and even i f C ongr es s had neve ract ed i n t he fi el d,135 s ta te s a n d lo c a litie s w o u ld b e p re c lu d e d f ro m d o in g s o . See i d. T h u s, ov er a centuryago , t he S up rem e C ou rtexp l ai ned t h a t: “[t ] he doctr i ne i s fi r m l yes t abl i s hed thatt he pow ert o excl ude or
e x p e l a lien s is v e ste d in th e p o lit ica l d e p a rtm e n ts o f th e [ f e d e ra l] g o v e rn m e n t, to b e re g u l a te d b ytr e a ty o r b ya c t o f C o n g re s s .” Y o v. U ni t ed Stat es , 185 U
. S. 296, 302 ( 1902)
. W hether H azl et on i nadvert ent l ys tum bl ed i nt o t hi s excl us i vel yfede r al dom ai n, ordeci ded t o defi ant l ybar ge i n, i ti s cl eart hati thas at t empt ed to u s urp author i t yt hatt he C ons t i tut i on has pl ace d bey on d the vi ci ssi tud es of l ocal gov ernm ents . T he h ou si ng provis i on s o f t he II R A O and t he R O are al so fi el d pr e- empt ed by t he I N A
. A s t he Supr eme C our texpl ai ned i n D eC anas , t h e c e n t r a l c o n c e r n o f t h e I NA i s wi t h “ t h e t e r ms and condit i ons of admi s s i on t o t he countr yand the s ubs equent t r eatm entof al i ens l aw ful l yi n t he countr y . ” 424 U
. S. at359. T he “c om pr ehens i veness of t he I N A s cheme forr egul at i on of i m m i gr at i on and natur al i zat i on, ” i d. , p lain ly p re c lu d e s s tate eff or t s , w hetherhar m oni ous orconfl i ct i ng , t o r e gul at e r es i dence in th is c o u n tr yb a s e d o n im m ig ra tio n s ta tu s . W e r ecogni ze, of cour s e, t hatH azl et on’ s hous i ng pr ovi s i ons nei t her contr ol actual phy s i cal entr y i nt o t he C i t y , norWe p oint out th at th e y c ou ld s tay

wi th f ri e nd s o nly

if 37 those frie nds owned property and did not rent. Authorized occupa nts of apar

tments who permit persons lac king la wful immigration status to s tay with them arealso fined under the RO: “$1000 for

eac h . . . Occupant . . . that does not havean occupancy permit” a nd $100 per da

y per a ny such Oc cupant until the violation is corre cted. RO § 10b. 136 p h y s ic a lly e x p e l p e rs o n s f ro m it. N o n e t h e le s s , “ [ i] n e s s e n c e ,” th a t is p re c is e ly w h a t th e y a tte m p t to d o . B o n ito B o a ts , 48 9 U. S. at 160. “I t i s di ffi cul t t o conce i ve of a m or e ef fec t i ve met hod” of ens ur i ng t hat per s ons do notent erorr emai n i n a l ocal i t yt han b yp re c lu d in g th e ira b ility to liv e in it. I d. A tor al ar gum en t, H azl et on pos i t ed thatal i ens l acki ng l aw ful s t atus coul d s t i l l r es i de i n t he C i t yt hr ough pur chas i ng a home , o r t h r o u g h s t a y i n g wi t h f r i e n d s . Th e r e s p o n s e i s as

37 d isi n g en u o u s as it is u n rea li sti c. T h ere is no thing o n this reco rd that su g g ests that the pe o p le w h o m the re side n ti al pro v isi o n s are ai m ed atcoul d avai l t h em sel ves of s uch opt i ons . E ven i f they
w e re v iab le a ltern a tiv e s f o r so m e , h o w e v e r, m a n y o th e rs s til l
w o u ld b e e x c lu d e d , an d th a t is su f f icie n t f o r th e se p ro v isio n s to b e p re -e m p te d
. W e al s o r ecogni ze thatH azl et on’ s hous i ng pr ovi s i ons reg u lat e p rese n ce o n lyw ith in its cityli m it s, n o t th e e n ti re
c o u n try . T h is d o e s n o t ch a n g e th e a n a ly sis
. T o b e m e a n in g f u l,137 th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t’s e x c lu siv e c o n tro l o ver r esi de n c e in th is countr ym us text end t o anypol i t i cal s ubdi vi s i on. A gai n, i ti s not
on l yHaz l e t o n ’ s o r d i n a n c e t h a twe mu s tc o n s i d e r . I f Haz l e t on
can r egul at e as i thas her e, t hen s o coul d everyo ther s t at e or loca li ty . S e e Ro we , 552 U
. S. at373. A s t he D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he N or t hern D i s t r i ctof Texas r eas oned: “w e ca n i m agi ne the
s l i ppery slope
. . . i f eve r yl ocal and s t at e governm entenac t ed l aw s purpor t i ng t o det er m i ne t hat
. . . [ce r t ai n per s ons ] coul d not
s t ay i n t hei r bounds
. I f every ci t y and s t at e ena ct ed and e nfor ced
s uch l aw s . . . the fede r al governm ent ’ s contr ol overdeci s i ons
re la tin g to im m ig ra tio n w o u ld b e e f f e c tiv e ly ev is c e ra te d .” V i l l as atP ar ks i d e P a r tners v. C i t y of Far m ers B r anch ( “Far m e rs Br an c h I ”) , N o. 3: 08- cv- 1 5 5 1 -B , H r g. T r . at136 (N .D . T e x . S e p t. 12 , 2 0 0 8 ). In d e e d , the re c o rd stro n g lysu g g e sts t hatH azl et on’ s m ay ori nt ended thes e pr ovi s i ons to b e at t he f o re f ro n t o f e x a c tly su c h a n e v is c e ra tio n . See sup ra not e 31. T he hou si ng provis i on s of the I IR A O and t he R O are al so confl i ctpr e- empt ed byt he I N A
. A s t he di s t r i ctcour texpl ai ned, t hes e pro v is i ons at t empt t o eff ect i vel y“r emove” per s ons fr om H azlet on bas ed on a s naps hotof thei rcurr enti m m i gr at i on sta tu s, ra th e r th a n b a se d o n a f e d e ra l o rd e r o f

re m o v a l. T h is is138 f u n d a me n t a l l yi n c o n s i s t e n twi t h t h e I NA. H azl et on goes t o gr eatl engths t o defe nd i t s hous i ng provis i on s as pr ov i din g f o r an a ccurat e asses sm ent of t enan t s’ i m m i gr at i on s t atus , and onl ydeny i ng hous i ng t o t hos e w hom t he fede r al governm entconfi r m s are her e unl aw ful l y . E ven
as s um i ng H azl et on i s correc t , t hi s ar gum entdoes notadvanc e H azl et on’ s caus e; r ather , i thi ghl i ght s t he fun d ament al
m i sconce pti on at t he heart of these or dinances. T hroug h its hous i ng pr ovi s i ons , H azl et on at t empt s t o r emove per s ons fr om t he comm uni t ybas ed on c u rr e n t im m igrati o n statu s. H o w ev er,
as J us t i ce Bl ackmun exp lai n ed i n P l yl er : “the s t ructur e of the im m ig ra ti o n sta tu tes m a k e s it im p o ss ib le f o r th e S tate to det er m i ne w hi ch al i ens ar e ent i t l ed t o reside nce , and w hi ch
e v e n tu a l l y w ill b e d e p o rt e d .” 4 5 7 U .S . a t 2 3 6 (B la c k m u n , J ., co n cu rri n g ). U nderfede r al l aw , an unl aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus does
no tl ead inst antl y , or i nev i t ably , t o rem ov al. U nd er m ost ci r c u ms t a n c e s , a f

e d e r a l r e mov a l h e a r i n g u n d e r s e c t i o n 240 of th e IN A is r e q u ire d . A b se n t ce rta in lim ited e x c e p tio n s, th is pr ocee di ng i s t he “s ol e and e xcl us i ve pr ocedur e fordet er m i ni ng
w hether an al i en m ay be admi t t ed t o t he U ni t ed St at es or , i f the139 a lie n h a s b e e n s o a d m itte d , re m o v e d f ro m th e U n ite d S ta te s .” 8 U
. S. C
. § 1 2 2 9 a(a )(3)
. A s w e expl ai ned i n det ai l above, k n o w in g w h e th e r th e g o v e rn m e n t w ill d e c id e to in iti a te pr ocee di ngs agai ns ta part i cul ar al i en i s as i m pos s i bl e as t r y i ng t o pr edi ctt he out come of suc h a pr ocee di ng once i ni t i at ed. T he fe der al governm enthas di s cr et i on i n deci di ng
w h e th e r a n d w h e n to in itia te re m o v a l p ro c e e d in g s . See J uar ez , 599 F. 3d at566. A s t he di s t r i ctcour tfound, t he governm ent p u rp o se f u lly e x e rc ise s its d isc re tio n n o t to p ro se c u te in c e rta in i nst ances, and t hereby t aci t l y al l ow s t he pres ence of tho se w ho se t echni cal s t atus r emai ns “i l l egal
. ” See Loz ano , 496 F. Supp. 2d at53 1 n
. 56
. F urtherm ore, on ce t he g ov ernm ent i nit i at es these pr ocee di ngs , w het h er theyw i l l r es ul ti n r emoval i s farfr om
cert ai n. A j udge mayaw ar d di s cr et i onaryr el i ef s avi ng a
rem o v ab le ali en fro m rem o v al, o r ev en ad justi n g th at ali en ’s
s ta tu s t o th a t o f

la w f u l p e rm a n e n t r e s id e n t. See 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 b
. T h u s , f

o rt h e s e r e a s o n s , i ti s s i m p l y: i m pos s i bl e fora St at e t o det er m i ne w hi ch al i ens th e F e d e ra l G o v e rn m e n t w ill e v e n tu a llyd e p o rt, w h i c h t h e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n tw i l l p e r m i tt o s t a y, a n d w h ic h th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n m e n t w il l u lti m a tely n a tu ra lize . U n til a n u n d o c u m e n ted a lien is or der ed deport ed byt he F eder al G overnm ent , no St at e ca n be as s ur ed thatthe al i en w i l l notbeSee Julia Preston, Stu dentsSp are d A mid a n I nc re as ein 38 Deportations , N.Y. Times, Aug . 9, 2010. 140 found t o have a fede r al per m i s s i on t o r es i de i n t he countr y , perhaps even a s a ci t i zen. I n d ee d, even t he I m m i gr at i on and N atur al i zat i on Ser vi ce cannot p redi ctw i t h cert ai nt yw hetherany ind ividu al ali en h as a ri g h t t o reside in the co u n try u n til d e p o rta tio n p ro c e e d in g s h a v e ru n th e ir c o u rs e . P l yl er , 4 5 7 U .S . a t 2 4 1 n .6 (P o w e ll, J ., c o n c u rr in g ). S t i t ched i nto t he fabri c of H azl et on ’s ho usi ng provis i on s, t hen, i s ei t her a l ack of under s t andi ng ora r efus al t o r ecogni ze th e c o m p lex iti e s o f

f e d e ra l im m ig ra tio n law . H a z leto n w o u ld eff ect i velyr emove fr om i t s C i t yan al i en col l ege s tudentt he fede r al g o v e rn me n th a s p u rp o s eful l ydecl i ned t o i ni t i at e r emoval pr ocee di ngs agai ns t . So t oo w oul d H azl et on r emove an al i en 38 bat t er ed s pous e, curren t l yunl aw ful l ypr es ent , butel i gi bl e for adj us t m entof s t atus t o l aw ful per m anent r es i dentundert he
s peci al pr ot ect i ons C ongr es s has aff or ded t o bat t er ed s pous es
a n d c h ild re n . See 8 U
. S
. C
. § 122 9b (b) (2)
. In ea c h o f these in sta n c e s, a s in e v e ry sin g le in sta n c e in w h ich H a z leto n w o u ld denyr es i dence t o an al i en bas ed on i m m i gr at ion status r ather th a n o n a f

e d e ra l o rd e r o f re m o v a l, H a z leto n w o u ld a c t d ire c tly i n o p p o s i t i o n t o f

e d e r a l l a w.141 H azl et on at t empt s t o avoi d t hi s r es ul t byagai n r el y i ng on t he concept of “concurr ent enfor cement ” t o defe nd i t s hous i ng p r o v i s i o n s . Acc o r d i n g t o Haz l e t o n , i t s h o u s i n g p r o v i s i o ns
m i r r or t he I N A ’ s pr ohi bi t i on agai ns t “harbor i ng, ” w hi ch i m pos es cr i m i nal penal t i es on: A nype rso n w ho
. . . kn ow i ng or i n reckl ess di s r egar d of t he fa ct that an al i en has come t o, e n te r e d , o r re m a in s in th e U n ited S tate s in vi ol at i on of l aw , conceal s , harbor s , ors hi el ds fr om det ect i on, or at t empt s t o conce al , harbor , or s hi el d fr om det ect i on, s uch al i en i n anypla ce, i ncl udi ng anybui l di ng oranym eans of tr a n s p o rt a tio n . 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i )
. H azl eton cont ends t hats i nce f e d e ra l c o u rts h a v e c o n sis ten tlyf o u n d th a t p ro v id in g h o u sin g to al i ens l acki ng l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus cons t i tut es unl aw ful “harbor i ng, ” i t s h ous i ng pr ovi s i ons do no m or e than
c o n c u rr e n tly e n f

o rc e f e d e ra l la w . H a z le to n is w ro n g . A s w e have expl ai n ed , H azl et on’ s hous i ng pr ovi s i ons
o p e ra te in a f

ield w h ich th e f

e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t ex c lu s iv e ly
o c c u p ies
. T h e re f

o re , e v e n if

H a z leto n ’s h o u sin g p ro v isio n s d id
concurr en t l yenfor ce f

eder al l aw , t hi s w oul d nots ave them; even har m oni ous r egul at i on i s pr e- empt ed her e. H ow ever , H azl et on i s al s o pl ai nl yi ncorr ecti n cl aim ing thati t s hous i ng pr ovi s i ons142 “mi r r or ” fede r al l aw . T he fede r al pr ohi bi t i on agai ns tharbor i ng has never been i nterpret ed t o apply so broadlyas t o en com pass th e typ ic a l la n d lo rd /te n a n t r e la tio n s h ip
. 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a) ( 1) ( A ) ( i i i ) cr i m i nal i zes harbo ri n g an al i en, know i ng ori n r eckl es s di s r egar d of t he fac t t hat t he al i en
c a me t o , o rr e ma i n s i n , t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f l a w. T he s t atut e, how ever , does notdefi ne the t er m “harbor i ng, ” and t he Supr eme C our t has y et t o do s o. A s a r es ul t , t he br eadth of t he t er m i s cu r r ent l yi n di s put e among t he C i r cui tC our t s of A ppeal s . Som e court s , ou r ow n i ncl uded, have f ound t hat cul pabi l i t yr equi r es s om e conduc tt hat hel ps t o conce al an al i en fr om author i t i es . W e, al ong w it h the C our tof A ppeal s fort he S e c o n d C irc u it, d e f

in e “ h a rb o rin g ” a s c o n d u c t “te n d in g to
s ubs t ant i al l y fac i l i t at e an a l i en’ s r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed St at es i l l e g a l l y and t o pr eve ntgover nm ent author i t i es f

r om detec ti ng the al i en’s unl aw

f ulpr es ence . ” U

n itedS ta tes v . O zc e lik , 527 F. 3d 88, 100 ( 3d C i r . 2008) ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ar ks om i t t ed) (em p h asis ad d ed ); se e a lso U n itedS ta tes v . K im , 193 F. 3d 567, 574 ( 2d C i r . 1999) ( H arbor i ng “enc o m p as s es conductt endi ng
s ubs t ant i al l yt o fac i l i t at e an a li en ’s r emai ni ng i n t he U ni t ed S t a t e s i l l e g a l l y and

t o p reve ntgovernm entauthor i t i es fr om143 d e t e c t i n g h i s u n l a wf

u l p r e s e n c e . ” ) ( e mp h a s i s a d d e d )
. T h u s , we have he l d t hat “harbor i ng” re qui r es s om e ac tof obs t ruct i on t hat red u ce s the likeliho o d the g o v ern m en t w il l disco v er the ali en ’s pr es ence . I ti s hi ghl yunl i kel yt hata l andl or d’ s r ent i ng of an
a p a rtm e n t to a n a lien la c k in g law f u l im m ig ra tio n sta tu s c o u ld
ever , w i thoutm or e, s at i s fyt hi s defi ni t i on of harbor i ng. R ent i ng an apa r t m enti n t he nor m al cour s e of bus i nes s i s not in an d of i t s el f conduct t hat pr event s t he governm ent fr om det ect i ng an
a lie n ’s p re s e n c e . It is tru e th a t o th e r C o u r ts o f A p p e a ls h a v e h e ld th a t a
s how i ng of conce al m enti s unnece s s ary , and thatconductw hi ch
m er el y“s ubs t ant i al l yfac i l i t at es an al i en’ s rem aini ng i n t he
c o u n tr yille g a lly” is s u f

f ic ie n t to c o n s titu te h a rb o ri n g . See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. Ti

pt on , 518 F.3d 5 91, 595 ( 8t h C i r . 2008) (i n terna l al terati o n o m itted). H o w ev er, ev en u n d e r the m o re l enientt est s of t hese j uri sdi ct i on s, w e are not aw are of anycase in w h ich so m e o n e h a s b e e n c o n v ict e d o f “ h a rb o rin g ” m e re ly beca us e s / he r ent ed an apart m ent t o s om eone s / he knew ( orhad
reas on t o k no w ) w as not l egall yi n the U nit ed S t at es. N ot abl y , al l t he ca s es ci t ed b y H az l et on fort hat pr opos i t i on i nvol ve defe ndant s w ho pl ay ed a m uch more act i ve144 role i n h elpin g an ali en rem ain i n the U n it ed S ta te s . See, e. g. , Ti pt on , 5 1 8 F .3 d a t 5 9 5 (d e f e n d a n t em

pl oyerw ho empl oy ed and h o u se d six u n a u th o riz e d a lien e m p lo y e e s, p ro v id e d th e m w ith t r ans por t at i on and moneyt o pur chas e neces s i t i es , and
m ai nt ai ned count er fei ti m m i gr at i on paper s fort hem gui l t yof h a rb o rin g ); U

ni t ed St at es v. Zheng , 3 0 6 F .3 d 1 0 8 0 , 1 0 8 2 (1 1 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) (d e f

e n d a n t em

pl oyerw h o p e rm itt e d ten to tw e n ty unauthor i zed a l i en empl oy ees , w ho w er e overw or ked and under pai d, t o l i v e a t h i s hous e i n “bar r ack- l i ke
ac co m m o d ati o n s” w i thoutpay i n g ren t gu il tyo f h arb o ri n g ); K im , 1 9 3 F .3 d a t 5 7 4 -7 5 (d e f e n d a n t em

pl oyerw ho advi s ed
un authori zed ali en em ploy ees t o c ha ng e nam es and a cqu i re fal se d o c u m e n tatio n g u iltyo f h a rb o rin g ); U

ni t ed Stat es v. Sanchez , 9 6 3 F .2 d 1 5 2 , 1 5 5 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (d e f e n d a n t em

pl oyerw ho paid t o rentan ap art m e n t f or unau t ho ri zed ali en em ploy ees, pr ovi ded them w i t h t r ans por t at i on t o a n d fr om w or k, and off er ed to o b ta in im m igrati o n p ap ers f o r th em g u il tyo f h arb o ri n g ). N o n e o f th e se c a se s in v o lv e a n yth in g v e rg in g o n a sim p le l andl or d/ t enantr el at i ons hi p. R ather , t he fa ct that so m anyof t hes e ca s es i nvol ve empl oy er s emphasi zes t hats om ethi ng m uch
m or e i s neede d t o tur n r ent i ng a r es i dent i al uni ti nt o harbor i ng.145 F u rt h erm o re, r e g ard less o f th e b rea d th o f th e term “harbor i ng” i n and of i t s el f, t her e i s no ques t i on t hatharbor i ng is illeg a l u n d e r f

e d e ra l law o n lyif

a d e f e n d a n t k n e w o r w a s in reckl ess di sr egard o f t he h arb o re d ali en’s i m m i grat i on st atus. See 8 U
. S. C
. § 1324( a)
. H azl et on ar gues t hatt he hous i ng p ro v isio n s o f th e IIR A O sim ilarlyo n lyp ro h ib it ren tin g to per s ons know n t o l ack l aw ful i m m i gr at i on s t atus . T hi s i s ol at ed
r e a d i n g o f

t h e I I RA O i s mi s l e a d i n g . T a k e n t o g e t h e r , t h e I I RA O and the R O notonl ypr ohi bi tt he know i ng harbor i ng of ( defi ned t o i ncl ude the r ent al of housi ng t o) cert ai n al i ens , but al s o m ake l egal i m m i gr at i on s t atus a qual i f i cat i on foroccupa ncyof r ent al hous i ng. A l t hough the t ypi cal l andl or d m i ghtneverknow of her/ hi s t enant ’ s i m m i gr at i on s t atus , H azl et on’ s pr ovi s i ons col l ect i vel yr equi r e that any pr ovi der of r ent al hous i ng be puton
n o ti ce ab o u t the i m m igrati o n statu s o f po tential ren ters . See Lozano , 496 F. Supp. 2 d at 4 93 ( E s pi nal t es t i fi ed that“he under s t ood t he or di nance s t o r equi r e t hat he obt ai n i nfor m at i on
on i m m i gr at i on s t atus fr om t enant s t hat he nor m al l yw oul d not
s e e k .” ). Al t h o u g h t h e f

e d e r a l g o v e r n me n t d o e s n o t i n t e n d for al i ens her e unl aw ful l yt o be harbor ed, i t has never evi dence d an146 in te n t f o r th e m to g o h o m e le s s . C f. 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 2 9 (a )(1 )(F )(i) ( expl ai ni ng thatan al i en not i ced t o appea rfora r emoval pr ocee di ng m us ti m m edi at elypr ovi de the A t t or neyG ener al “w i t h a w r i t t en r ecor d of an addr es s . . . at w hi ch t he al i en may be cont act ed r es pect i ng [the] pr ocee di ng. ”)
. C om m on s ens e, of
c o u rse , su g g e sts th a t H a z le to n h a s a b so lu telyn o in ter e st in
r e d u c i n g a l i e n s wi t h o u tl e g a l s t a tu s t o h o me l e s s n e s s e i t h e r . No
m u n icip a lityw o u ld b e n e f it fro m f o rc in g a n yg ro u p o f

re sid e n ts (“ leg a l” o r “ ill e g a l” ) o n to its stre e ts. R a th e r, ita p p e a rs p lain t hatt he purpose o f these hous i ng pr ovi s i ons i s t o ens ur e that al i ens l acki ng l egal i m m i gr at i on s t atus r es i de s om ew her e other t han H azl et on. I t i s t hi s pow ert o eff ect i vel ypr ohi bi tr es i dency bas ed on i m m i gr at i on s t atus t hati s so clear l yw i t hi n t he
e x c lu s iv e d o m a in o f

th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. In su m , w e f

ind the h o u sing p rov isi o n s o f H az let o n ’s
o rd in a n c e s p re -e m p ted r e g u latio n s o f im m ig ra tio n , an d b o th f i e l d a n d c o n f

l i c tp r e - e mp t e d b yt h e I NA. VI I . CONCL US I ON For t he r eas ons s etfor t h above, w e af fi r m i n p ar tand
r ever s e i n par tt he di s t r i ctcour t ’ s or derper m anent l yenj oi ni ng Ha z l e t o n ’ s e n f

o r c e me n to f

t h e I I RA O a n d t h e RO
.147 V III . A P P E N D IX A . T he I l l egal I m m i grat i on R el i ef A ct O rdi nance ( O r di nanc e 20 06 - 18 , as a me n d e d b y Or d i n a n c e s 2 0 0 6 - 4 0 a nd 2007- 7) I LL EGAL I M M I GRATI ON RELI EF ACT ORDI NAN CE BE I T OR DAI NED BY T HE CO UNC I L OF T HE CI T Y OF H A ZLE TO N A S FO LLO W S: SECTI ON 1
. TI TLE T hi s chapt ers hal l be know n and maybe ci t ed as t he “Ci t yof H a z le to n Il le g a l I m m ig ra tio n R e lie f A c t O rd in a n c e .” S E CT I ON 2
. FI NDI NGS AND DE CL AR AT I ON OF PU RPO SE T he Peopl e of the C i t yof H azl et on fi nd and dec l ar e: A
. T hats t at e and f

eder al l aw r equi r e thatcert ai n condi t i ons be
m e t b e f o re a p e rso n m a yb e a u th o riz e d to w o rk o r re sid e in th is
c o u n t r y. B . T h a t u n law f

u l w o rk e rs a n d ill e g a l a lie n s, a s d e f in e d b yth is
or di nance and s t at e and f eder al l aw , do not nor m al l ym eets uch condi t i ons as a mat t ero f la w w hen pr es enti n t he C i t yof H azl et on. C . T h a t u n law f

u l em p lo ym e n t, th e h a rb o rin g o f ill e g a l alie n s in148 dw el l i ng uni t s i n t he C i t y of H azl et on, and cr i m e comm i t t ed by i l l egal al i ens har m t he heal t h, s afe t yand w el far e of a ut hor i zed U S w or ker s and l egal r es i dent s i n t he C i t yof H azl et on. I l l egal im m ig ra tio n lea d s to h ig h e r c rim e ra tes , su b jec ts o u r h o sp itals t o fi s cal har ds hi p and l egal r es i dent s t o s ubs t andar d qual i t yof
car e, contr i but es t o ot herbur dens on publ i c s er vi ces , i ncr eas i ng t heircostand dim i nish in g t heiravail abil i t yt o legal res i den t s, and di m i ni s hes ourover al l qual i t yof l i fe. D . T h a t th e C ityo f

H a z leto n is a u th o riz e d to a b a te p u b lic nui s ance s and empow er ed and mandat ed b y t he peopl e of H azl et on t o abat e the nui s ance of i l l egal i m m i gr at i on by di l i gent l y pr ohi bi t i ng t he ac t s and pol i ci es t hatfac i l i t at e i l l egal i m m i gr at i on i n a mannercons i s t entw i t h feder al l aw and the obj ect i ves of

C on gress . E
. T h a tUn i t e d S t a t e s Co d e T i t l e 8 , s u b s e c t i o n 1 3 2 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( A) pr ohi bi t s t he harbor i ng of i l l egal al i ens. T he pr ovi s i on of hous i ng t o i l l egal al ie ns i s a funda m ent al component of harbor i ng. F. T hi s or di nance s eeks t o s ecur e t o t hos e l aw ful l y pr es ent i n t he U ni t ed Stat es and thi s C i t y , w hetherornott heyar e ci t i zens of t he U ni t ed S tat es , t he r i ghtt o l i ve i n peac e fr ee of t he thr eat149 cr i m e, t o enj oy t he publ i c s er vi ces pr ovi ded byt hi s ci t yw i t hout bei ng bur dened byt he cos tof pr o v i di ng goods , s uppor tand
se rv ice s to a lien s u n law f u lly p re se n t in th e U n ited S tate s, a n d to be fr ee of t he debi l i t at i ng eff ect s on t hei reconomi c and s oci al
w el l being i m po sed byt he inf lu x of il l egal al i ens t o the full est ext entt hatt hes e goal s can be achi eved c ons i s t entw i t h t he C ons t i tut i on and Law s of the U ni t ed St at es and the C om m onw eal t h of Penns y l vani a. G
. T he C it y sh al l notcons t rue thi s or di nance t o pr ohi bi tt he
r ender i ng of emer gencym edi cal car e, emer gency as s i s t ance , or l egal as s i s t ance t oanyper s on. S E CT I ON 3
. DE F I NI T I ONS W hen us ed i n t hi s chapt er , t he fol low ing w or ds , t er m s and phr as es s hal l have the meani ngs asc ri bed t o t hem her ei n, and
s hal l be c o n s t rued s o as t o be cons i s t entw i t h s t at e and f eder al l a w, i n c l u d i n g f

e d e r a l i mm i g r a t i o n l a w: A
. “B us i nes s ent i t y ” means anyperso n orgr oup of per s ons per for m i ng orengagi ng i n anyact i vi t y , ent erpr i s e, pr ofes s i on,
oroccupa t i on forgai n, benef i t , advant age, orl i vel i hood,
w h e th e r f

o r p ro f it o r n o t f

o r p ro f it. (1 ) T h e te r m b u sin e ss e n titysh a ll i n c lu d e b u t n o t b e lim ited to150 sel fem ploy e d in d iv id u al s, part nershi ps, corporat i on s,
con t ract ors, and subco ntr act ors. (2 ) T h e ter m b u sin e ss e n titysh a ll i n c lu d e a n yb u sin e ss e n tity th a t p o ss e ss e s a b u sin e ss p e rm it, a n yb u sin e ss e n tityth a t is exempt byl aw fr om obt ai ni ng s uch a bus i nes s per m i t , and any bus i nes s ent i t yt h at is oper at i ng unl aw ful l yw i t houts uch a b u sin e ss p e rm it. B
. “C i t y ” means t he C i t yof H azl et on. C
. “C ont r act or ” means a per son, empl oy er , s ubcontr act oror bus i nes s ent i t yt hatent er s into an agr eementt o per for m any
s er vi ce or w or k ort o pr ovi de a c er t ai n pr oducti n excha nge for val uabl e cons i der at i on. T hi s defi ni t i on s hal l i ncl ude butnotbe l i m i t ed t o a subcontr act or , contr actempl oy ee, ora r ecrui t i ng or
s t a f f i n g e n t i t y. D . “Ille g a l A lien ” m e a n s an a lien w h o is no t law f u lly p re se n t in t he U ni t ed St at es , acc or di ng t o t he t er m s of U ni t ed St at es C ode T itl e 8 , s e c tio n 1 1 0 1 e t se q . T h e C itysh a ll n o t co n c lu d e th a t a per s on i s an i l l egal al i en unl es s and unt i l an author i zed
r epr es ent at i ve of the C i t yhas verified w i t h t he fe der al governm ent , pur s uant t o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, s ubs ect i on 1373( c) , t hatt he per s on i s an al i en w ho i s not l aw ful l ypr es ent151 i n the U nit ed S t at es. E
. “U nl aw ful w o rke r ” means a per s on w ho does nothave the l egal r i ght or author i zat i on t o w or k due t o an i m pedi m enti n any pr ovi s i on of fe der al , s t at e or l ocal l aw , i ncl udi ng but notl i m i t ed t o a mi nordi s qual i fi ed bynonage, oran unauthor i zed a l i en as d ef ined b y U n it ed S tat es C o d e T it le 8, su b sec ti o n 1 3 2 4 a(h )(3). F. “W or k” means anyj ob, t as k, empl oy m en t, l abor , per s onal
se rv ice s, o r a n yo th e r a c tiv ityf o r w h ich c o m p e n sa tio n is p ro v id e d , ex p e c ted , o r d u e , inc lu d in g b u t n o t li m ited to a ll act i vit i es cond ucted bybu si ness ent i t i es. G
. “B as i c Pi l otPr ogr am” m eans t h e elec t r oni c ver i fi cat i on of
w o rk a u tho ri za ti o n p rog ram o f the Ill eg al Im m igrati o n R ef o rm and I m m i gr at i on R es pons i bi l i t yA ct o f 1 9 96, P. L
. 104- 208, D i vi s i on C , Sect i on 403( a) ; U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8,
s ubs ect i on 1324a, and oper at ed byt he U ni t ed St at es D ep ar t m ent of H om el and Secur i t y( ora s ucce s s orpr og r am est abl i s hed by th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t.) SE CT I ON 4
. BU S I NE S S P E RMI T S , CO NT RA CT S , OR G RA N TS A . It i s u n law f

u l f o r a n yb u sin e ss e n tityto k n o w in g lyre c ru it, h ire f o r e m p lo ym e n t, or c o n tin u e to e m p lo y , o r to p e rm it,152 d isp a tch , o r in stru c t an yp e rso n w h o is a n u n law f u l w o rk e r to perform w ork i n w ho l e or partw i t hin the C i t y . E v e rybu si ness ent i t y that appl i es for a bus i nes s per m i t t o engage i n anyt ype of
w o rk in th e C itysh a ll sig n a n a f f id a v it, p re p a re d b yth e C ity Sol i ci t or , aff

i r m i ng t hatt heydo notknow i ngl yut i l i ze the
serv ices o r hire an yp erso n w h o is an u n law fu l w o rke r. B . E n f o rc e m e n t: T h e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll enfor ce the r equi r ement s of thi s s ect i on. ( 1) A n enfor cementact i on sh all b e i ni t i at ed bym eans of a
w r i t t en si gned compl ai ntt o t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cement O f f ice su b m itt e d b ya n yC ityo f f icia l, bu sin e ss e n tity , o r C ity
r es i dent
. A val i d compl ai nts hal l i ncl ude an alle gat i on w hi ch des cr i bes t he al l eged vi ol at or ( s ) as w el l as t he ac t i ons
cons t i tut i ng t he vi ol at i on, and t he dat e and l ocat i on w her e s uch act i ons occurr ed. ( 2) A compl ai ntw hi ch al l eges a vi ol at i on on t he bas i s of nat i onal or i gi n, ethni ci t y , orr ace s hal l be dee m ed i nval i d and
s hal l notbe enf

or ced. ( 3) U pon r ece i ptof a va l i d compl ai nt , t he H azl et on C ode E nfo rcem ent O ffi ce shal l , w i t hin three bu si ness day s, request i dent i t yi nfor m at i on fr om t he bus i nes s ent i t yr egar di ng any153 per s ons al l eged t o be unl aw ful w or ker s . T he H azl et on C ode E nfor cementO ffi ce s hal l s us pend the bus i nes s per m i tof any bus i nes s ent i t yw hi ch fa i l s , w i t hi n t hr ee bus i nes s day s aft er
r ece i ptof the re ques t , t o pr ovi de s uch i nfor m at i on. I n i ns t ance s
w her e an unl aw ful w or keri s al l eged t o be an una ut hor i zed al i en, as defi ned i n U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, s ubs ect i on 1 3 2 4 a (h )(3 ), th e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll
su b m it i d e n tityd a ta r e q u ire d b yth e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t to
ver i fy , pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es C ode T i t l e 8, s ect i on 1373, t he i m m i gr at i on s t atus of s uch per s on( s ) , and s hal l pr ovi de the bus i nes s ent i t yw i t h w r i t t en conf i r m at i on of thatver i fi cat i on. ( 4) T he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l s us pend the b u sin e ss p e rm it o f

a n yb u sin e ss e n tityw h ich f a ils c o rre c t a vi ol at i on of t hi s s ect i on w i t hi n t hr ee bus i nes s day s aft er not i fi cat i on of t he vi ol at i on byt he H azl et on C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce. ( 5) T he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l n o t s us pend t he bus i nes s per m i t of a bus i nes s ent i t y i f, pr i or t o t he dat e of the
v iolati o n , the b u sine ss en ti tyh ad v erified the w o rk
a u th o riz a tio n o f

th e a lleg e d u n law f

u l w o rk e r(s ) u sin g th e B a sic P i l o tP r o g r a m.154 ( 6) T he s us pens i on s hal l t er m i nat e one bus i nes s dayaft era l egal
r epr es ent at i ve of the bus i nes s ent i t ys ubm i t s , ata C i t yoffi ce des i gnat ed byt he C i t ySol i ci t or , a s w or n aff i davi ts t at i ng t hat t he vi ol at i on has ended. (a ) T h e a f

f id a v it sh a ll i n c lu d e a d e sc rip tio n o f th e sp e c if

ic
m eas ur es and ac t i ons t aken byt he bus i nes s ent i t yt o end t he vi ol at i on, and s hal l i ncl ude the name, addr es s and ot heradequa t e i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on of the unl aw ful
w o rk e rs r e late d to th e c o m p lain t. (b) W h ere tw o o r m o re o f th e u n law fu l w o rke rs w ere
ver i fi ed byt he fe der al governm entt o be unauthor i zed
a lien s, th e leg a l re p re se n tativ e o f th e b u sin e ss e n titysh a ll
su b m it t o th e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice , in addi t i on t o t he pr es cr i bed af fi davi t , document at i on
acc ept abl e t o t he C i t ySol i ci t orw hi ch conf i r m s t hatt he bus i nes s ent i t yhas enr ol l ed i n and w i l l par t i ci pat e i n t he B as i c Pi l otPr ogr am for the dur at i on of the val i di t yof the b u s i n e s s p e r m i tg r a n t e d t o t h e b u s i n e s s e n t i t y. ( 7) For a s econd ors ubs equentvi ol at i on, t he H azl et on C ode E nfor cementO ffi ce s hal l s us pend the bus i nes s per m i tof a bus i nes s ent i t y for a per i od of tw entyday s . A ft ert he end of t he155 su sp e n sio n p e rio d , a n d u p o n re c e ip t o f th e p re sc rib e d a f

f id a v it, t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l r ei ns t at e the b u sin e ss p e rm it. T h e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll f o rw a rd th e a f

f id a v it, c o m p lain t, an d a ss o c iate d d o c u m e n ts to t he appr opr i at e fe der al enfor cement agenc y , pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, s ect i on 1373. I n t he ca s e of a n unl aw ful
w or kerdi s qual i fi ed bys t at e l aw notr el at ed t o i m m i gr at i on, t he H a z leto n C o d e E n f

o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll f

o rw a rd th e a f

f id a v it,
c o m p lain t, an d a ss o c iate d d o c u m e n ts to th e a p p ro p ria te s tate
e n f o r c e m e n ta g e n c y. C
. A l l agenc i es o f t he C i t ys hal l enr ol l and part i ci pat e i n t he Ba s i c P i l o tP r o g r a m. D . A s a c o n d iti o n f

o r th e a w a rd o f

a n yC ityc o n tra c t o r g ra n t to a b u sine ss en ti tyfo r w h ich th e v alue o f e m p loym e n t, labo r or, p e rso n a l se rv ice s s h a ll ex c e e d $ 1 0 ,0 0 0 , the b u sin e ss e n titysh a ll pr ovi de document at i on confi r m i ng i t s enr ol l m en t a nd p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e Ba s i c P i l o tP r o g r a m. E
. Pr i vat e C aus e of A ct i on for U nfai r l y D i s char ged Em pl oy ees ( 1) T he di s char ge of a nyempl oy ee w h o is notan unl aw ful
w orker bya bu si nes s e n t i t yi n the C i t yi s an un fai r busi ness pr act i ce i f, on t he dat e of t he di s char ge, t he busi nes s ent i t yw as156 no tpart i ci pati ng i n the B asi c P i l o t p rogram and t he b usi ness
en ti tyw as e m p loy ing an u n law fu l w o rke r. ( 2) T he di s char ged w o r kers hal l have a pr i vat e ca us e of a ct i on in th e M u n icip a l C o u rt o f H a z le to n a g a in st th e b u sin e ss e n tity f o r th e u n f

a ir b u sin e ss p ra c tice . T h e b u sin e ss e n tityf o u n d to have vi ol at ed thi s s ubs ect i on s hal l be l i abl e t o t he aggr i eved empl oy ee f

or : ( a) t hr ee t i m es t he ac tual damag es sust ai ned by t he empl oy ee, i ncl udi ng butnotl i m i t ed t o l os tw ages or compensa t i on fr om t he dat e of the di s char ge unt i l t he dat e the empl oy ee ha s pr ocur ed new empl oy m entatan equi val entr at e of c om pens at i on, up t o a per i od of one hundr ed and tw entyday s ; and ( b) r eas onabl e att or ney ’ s fee s and cost s. S E CT I ON 5
. HAR BO RI NG I L L E GAL AL I E NS A
. Iti s unlaw ful for anyperso n o r b usi ness ent i t yt hat ow ns a dw el l i ng uni ti n t he C i t yt o harboran i ll eg al a l i en i n t he dw el l i ng uni t , know i ng or i n r eckl es s di s r egar d of the fa ctt hat
a n a lien h a s co m e to , en ter e d , o r re m a in s in th e U n ited S tate s in
v io latio n o f

law , u n les s su c h h a rb o rin g is o th e rw ise e x p re ss ly p e r mi t t e d b yf

e d e r a l l a w. (1 ) F o r th e p u rp o se s o f th is s e c tio n , to le t, le a se , o r re n t a157 dw el l i ng un i tt o an i l l egal al i en, kn ow i n g or i n reckl ess di s r egar d of t he fa ct that an al i en has come t o, ent er ed, or
r emai ns i n t he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of l aw , s hal l be dee m ed t o cons t i tut e harbor i ng. T o s uffe rorper m i tt he occ upancyof the dw el l i ng un i tbyan il l egal al i en, kn ow i ng or i n reckl ess di s r egar d of t he fa ctt hat a n ali en has come t o, ent er ed, or
r emai n s i n t h e Uni t e d St a t e s i n v i o l a t i o n o f l a w, s h a l l a l s o be deemed t o cons t i tut e harbor i ng. ( 2) A s epar at e vi ol at i on s hal l be deemed t o have be en comm i t t ed
o n e a c h d a yth a t su c h h a rb o rin g o c c u rs, a n d f o r e a c h a d u lt i l l egal al i en harbor ed i n t he dw el l i ng uni t , begi nni ng one bus i nes s dayaft err ece i ptof a not i ce of vi ol at i on fr om t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce. ( 3) A s epar at e vi ol at i on of t hi s s ect i on s hal l be deemed t o have b e e n c o m m itt e d f

o r e a c h b u sin e ss d a yo n w h ich th e o w n e r f a ils to p ro v id e th e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice w ith id e n tity dat a nee ded t o obt ai n a fe der al ver i fi cat i on of i m m i gr at i on
s t atus , begi nni ng t hr ee da y s aft ert he ow nerr ece i ves w r i t t en not i ce f r om t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce. B . E n f o rc e m e n t: T h e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll enfor ce the r equi r ement s of thi s s ect i on.158 ( 1) A n enf

o rce m en tact i on s hal l be i ni t i at ed bym eans of a
w r i t t en s i gn ed com pl ai ntt o t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce s ubm i t t ed by any offi ci al , bus i nes s ent i t y , orr es i dentof t he C i t y . A val i d compl ai nts hal l i ncl ude an a l l egat i on w hi ch des cr i bes t he al l eged vi ol at or ( s ) as w el l as t he ac t i ons
cons t i tut i ng t he vi ol at i on, and the dat e and l ocat i on w her e s uch act i ons occurr ed. ( 2) A com p l ai ntw hi ch al l eges a vi ol at i on on t he bas i s of nat i onal or i gi n, ethni ci t y , orr ace s hal l be dee m ed i nval i d and
s hal l notbe enf

or ced. ( 3) U pon r ece i ptof a val i d w r i t t en compl ai nt , t he H azl et on C ode E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ice sh a ll, p u rsu a n t to U n ited S tate s C o d e T itl e 8, s ect i on 1373( c) , ver i fyw i t h t he fe der al governm entt he i m m i gr at i on s t atus of a pe r s on s eeki ng t o us e, occupy , l eas e, or
r enta dw el l i ng uni ti n t he C i t y . T he H azl et on C ode E nfor cementO ffi ce s hal l s ubm i ti dent i t ydat a r equi r ed byt he f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t to v e rif yim m ig ra tio n sta tu s. T h e C itysh a ll for w ar d i dent i t ydat a pr ovi ded byt he ow nert o t he fe der al governm ent , and s hal l pr ovi de the pr oper t yow nerw i t h w r i t t en confi r m at i on of t hatver i fi cat i on. ( 4) I f af t erfi ve bus i nes s day s fol l ow i ng r ece i pt of w r i t t en not i ce159 fr om t he C i t yt hata vi ol at i on has occurr ed and thatt he i m m i gr at i on s t atus of any al l eged i l l egal al i en has been ve r i fi ed, pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, s ect i on 1373( c) , t he
o w n e r o f th e d w e lli n g u n it fa ils to c o rre c t a v io latio n o f th is
s ect i on, t he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l denyor
su sp e n d th e re n tal lic e n se o f th e d w e lli n g u n it. (5 ) F o r th e p e rio d o f

su sp e n sio n , the o w n e r o f th e d w e lli n g u n it
s hal l notbe perm i t t ed t o col l ectanyr ent , paym ent , fee , orany ot herfor m of com pens at i on fr om , or on behal f of, anyt enantor
o c c u p a n t in th e d w e lli n g u n it. ( 6) T he deni al ors us pens i on s hal l te r m i nat e one bus i nes s day
a f ter a leg a l re p re s e n tativ e o f th e d w e lli n g u n it o w n e r su b m its to th e H a z leto n C o d e E n f o rc e m e n t O f

f ic e a sw o rn a f

f id a v it sta tin g th a t ea c h a n d e v e ryv io latio n h a s e n d e d
. T h e a f f id a v it
s hal l i ncl ude a des cr i pt i on of the s peci fi c meas ur es and ac t i ons tak e n b y t h e b u sin e ss e n tityto e n d th e v io latio n , an d sh a ll i ncl ude the name, addr es s an d ot heradequa t e i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on forthe i l l egal al i ens w ho w er e the s ubj ectof the
c o m p lain t. ( 7) T he H azl et on C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l forw ar d t he aff i davi t , compl ai nt , and as s oci at ed document s t o t he160 appr opr i at e fe der al enfor cementagenc y , pur s uantt o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, s ect i on 1373. ( 8) A nydw el l i ng uni tow nerw ho co m m i t s a s econd or
s ubs equentvi ol at i on of thi s s ect i on s hal l be s ubj ect t o a fi ne of t w o hundr ed and f

i ftydol l ar s ( $250) foreac h s epar at e vi ol at i on. T he suspe nsi on provis i on s of t his sect i on app l i cable t o a fir st
v i o l a t i o n s h a l l a l s o a p p l y. ( 9) U p o n t h e r e q u e s to f a d wel l i n g u n i to wne r , t h e Haz l e t on C ode E nfor cement O ffi ce s hal l , pur s uant t o U ni t ed St at es C ode T i t l e 8, s ect i on 1373( c) , ver i fy w i t h t he fede r al governm entt he l a w f u l i m m i g r a t i o n s t a tu s o f a p e r s o n s e e k i n g t o u s e , o c c u p y, lea se , o r re n t a d w e lli n g u n it i n th e C ity . T h e p e n a lti e s in th is
se c tio n sh a ll n o t ap p lyin th e c a se o f d w e lli n g u n it o c c u p a n ts
w hos e s t atus as an al i en l aw ful l ypr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es has been ve r i fi ed. SECTI ON 6
. CO NSTRU CTI ON AN D SEV ERA BI LI TY A
. T he r equi r ement s and obl i gat i ons of thi s s ect i on s hal l be i m pl ement ed i n a mannerful l ycons i s t entw i t h fede r al l aw
re g u lat in g im m ig ra tio n a n d p ro tec tin g th e c iv il righ ts o f a ll ci t i zens an d ali ens. B
. I f anypartof pr ovi s i on of thi s C hapt eri s i n confl i ctor161 in c o n sis ten t w ith a p p lica b le p ro v isi o n s o f f e d e ra l o r sta te
s t atut es , o r is ot herw i s e hel d t o be i nval i d orunenfor cea bl e by
a n y c o u rt o f

c o m p e ten t ju risd ictio n , su c h p a rt o f p ro v isio n sh a ll be s us pended a nd s uper s eded bys uch appl icab le l aw s or
r e g u l a t i o n s , a n d t h e r e ma i n d e r o f t h i s Cha p t e r s h a l l n o tbe
a f f e c t e d t h e r e b y. SEC TI O N 7. I M PLEM EN TA TI O N A N D PRO CE SS A
. P ro sp e c tive Ap

p lica tio n O n ly
. T h e d e f a u lt p re su m p tio n w ith
r es pect to O rdi nance s of the C i t yof H azl et on— t hats uch O r di nance s s hal l appl y onl ypr os pect i vel y
— s hal l per t ai n t o t he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R el i ef A ctO r di nance . T he I l l egal Im m ig ra tio n R e lief

A c t O rd in a n c e sh a ll b e a p p lied o n lyto empl oym entcontr act s , agr eement s t o per for m s er vi ce orw or k,
an d ag r eement s t o pr ovi de a c er t ai n pr oducti n excha nge for val uabl e cons i der at i on t hatar e ent er ed i nt o or ar e r enew ed af t er t he dat e thatt he I l le gal I m m i gr at i on R el i ef A ctO r di nance b e c o m e s e f

f e c tiv e a n d a n yju d icia l in ju n c tio n p ro h ib iti n g its i m pl ement at i on i s r emoved. T he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R el i ef A ct O r di nance s hal l be appl i ed onl yt o contr act s t o l et , l eas e, orr ent d w e lli n g u n its th a t ar e e n ter e d in to o r a re re n e w e d a f ter th e d a te t hatt he I l l egal I m m i gr at i on R el i ef A ctO r di nance becomes162 e f f e c tiv e a n d a n y j u d ic ia l in ju n c tio n p ro h ib iti n g its i m pl ement at i on i s r emoved. T he r enew al of a mont h- t o- m ont h l eas e orot hertype of t enanc y
w h ich a u to m a tic a llyre n e w s a b se n t n o tice b ye ith e r p a rtyw ill notbe cons i der ed as ent er i ng i nt o a new contr actt o l et , l eas e or
re n t a d w e lli n g u n it. B
. C on dit i on of Lease
. C ons i s t entw i t h t he obl i gat i ons of a
r ent al u n i t o wne r d e s c r i b e d i n Se c t i o n 5
. A. , a t e n a n t ma ynot
e n ter in to a c o n tra c t f

o r th e re n tal o r lea sin g o f a d w e lli n g u n it
u n les s th e te n a n t is e ith e r a U .S . citize n o r a n a lien law f u lly pr es enti n t he U ni t ed St at es acc o rding t o t he t er m s of U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, Sect i on 1101 ets eq. A t enantw ho i s nei t her a U
. S. ci t i zen noran al i en l aw ful l y pr es ent i n t he U ni t ed St at es
w ho ent er s i nt o s uch a c ont r acts hal l be dee m ed t o have br eac hed a c ondi t i on of t he l eas e under 68 P. S. Sect i on 250. 501. A t enantw ho i s nota U
. S. ci t i zen w ho s ubs equent t o t he begi nni ng of hi s t enanc ybecomes unl aw ful l yp rese nti n t he U ni t ed St at es s hal l be dee m ed t o have br eac hed a c ondi t ion of t he l eas e under68 P. S. Sect i on 250. 501. C
. C or r ect i ons of

V i ol at i ons — E m

pl oym ent

of U nl aw f ul W orkers
. T he corr ect i on o f a v i ol at i on w i t h r es pectt o t he163 empl oym entof an unl aw ful w or kers hal l i n clud e anyof the foll ow i ng act i on s: (1) T h e b u sine ss en ti tyterm inates th e u n law fu l w o rke r’s
e m p lo ym e n t. ( 2) T he bus i nes s ent i t y , aft eracqui r i ng addi t i onal i n fo rm at i on fr om t he w or ker , r eques t s a s econda r yoraddi t i onal ver i fi cat i on by t he fede r al governm ent of t he w or ker ’ s author i zat i on, p ursuant t o the procedu res of the B asi c P i l ot Program
. W h ile t hi s ver i fi cat i on is p en d i ng, t he thr ee bus i nes s dayper i od des cr i bed i n Sect i on 4. B
. ( 4) s hal l be t ol l ed. ( 3) T he bus i nes s ent i t yat t empt s t o t er m i nat e the unl aw ful
w or ker ’ s empl oym ent and such t er m i nat i on i s chal l enged i n a
cou rtof the C o m m o n w e a lth o f P e n n sy lv a n ia. W h ile th e b u siness
en ti typ u rsue s the term in ati o n o f th e u n law fu l w o rke r’s employm enti n s uch forum , t he thr ee bus i nes s dayper i od des cr i bed i n Sect i on 4. B
. ( 4) s hal l be t ol l ed. D
. C or r ect i ons of

V i ol at i ons — H

ar bor i ng I

l l egal A l i ens . T he
corr ect i on of a vi ol at i on w i t h r es pectt o t he harbor i ng o f an i l l egal al i en i n a dw el l i ng uni ts hal l i ncl ude anyof the fol l ow i ng act i on s: ( 1) A not i ce t o qui t , i n w r i t i ng, i s s ued and s er ved byt he164 dw el l i ng uni tow ner , as l andl or d, t o t he t enantdecl ar i ng a for fei tur e of t he l eas e forbr eac h of the l eas e condi t i on des cr i be i n S e c t i o n 7
. B. ( 2) T he dw el l i ng uni tow ner , aft eracqui r i ng addit ion al in f o rm a tio n f

r o m th e a lien , req u e sts th e C ityo f H a z leto n to obt ai n a s econda r yoraddit iona l ver i fi cat i on byt he fe der al governm entt hatt he al i en i s l aw ful l y p rese nti n t he U ni t ed St at es , undert he pr ocedur es des i gnat ed b yt he fe der al governm ent , pur s uant t o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, Subse ct i on 1373( c)
. W hi l e thi s s econd veri fi cat i on i s pendi ng, t he fi ve bus i nes s dayper i od des cr i bed i n Sect i on 5. B
. ( 4) s hal l be t ol l ed. ( 3) T he comm ence m en tof an a ct i on fort he r ecove r yof pos s es s i on of r eal pr oper t y i n acc or dance w i t h Penns y l vani a l aw b yth e lan d lo rd a g a in st th e ill e g a l alie n . If su c h a c tio n is cont es t ed byt he t enant i n cour t , t he dw el l i ng uni tow ners hal l be deemed t o have c om pl i ed w i t h t hi s O r di nance w hi l e the d w e lli n g u n it o w n e r is p u rsu in g th e a c ti o n in c o u rt. W h ile th is p ro c e ss is p e n d in g , the f iv e b u sin e ss d a yp e rio d d e sc rib e d in Sect i on 5. B
. ( 4) s hal l be t ol l ed. E
. P r ocedur e i

f V eri f i cat i on is D elayed
. I f the fe der al g o v e rn m e n t n o tifie s th e C ityo f H a z le to n th a t itis u n a b le to165 ver i fyw hethera t enanti s l aw ful l y pr es ent i n t he U ni t ed St at es
orw hetheran empl oy ee i s author i zed t o w or k i n t he U ni t ed St at es , the C it y of H azl et on s hal l t ake no f ur t heract i on on t he compl ai ntunt i l a ver i fica t i on fr om t he fe der al governm ent
conce r ni ng t he s t atus of the i ndi vi dual i s r ece i ved. A tno poi nt
s hal l anyC i t yoffi ci al at t empt t o m ake a n i ndepende nt det er mi n a t i o n o f

a n ya l i e n ’ s l e g a l s t a tu s , wi t h o u tv e r i f i c a t i on fr om t h e f

e d e r a l g o v e r n me n t , p u r s u a n tt o Uni t e d St a t e s Code T it le 8, S u b sec ti o n 1 3 7 3 (c). F
. V enu e f or Jud i ci al Proce ss . A n y b u sin e ss e n tity o r re n tal u n it
ow ner s ubj ect t o a compl ai nt and s ubs equentenfor cementunder this o r di nance , oranyempl oy ee of s uch a bus i nes s ent i t yor t enanto f s uch a r ent al uni tow ner , m aychal l enge the enfor cementof t hi s O r di nance w i th resp ectt o s uch ent i t yor i ndi vi dual i n t he M agi s t er i al D i s t r i ctC our tfor t he C i t yof H a z le to n , s u b

jec t to th e rig h t o f

a p p e a l to th e L u z e rn e C o u n ty C our tof C om m on Pl eas. S u ch an e nt i t yori ndi vi dual m ay
a ltern a tiv e ly c h a llen g e th e e n f o rc e m e n t o f

th is O rd in a n c e w ith
r es pectt o s uch ent i t yori ndi vi dual in an y ot hercour tof
c o mpe t e n tj u r i s d i c t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h a p p l i c a b l e l a w,
su b jec t to a ll righ ts o f

a p p e a l.166 G
. D ef er enc e to Feder alD et er m i nat i ons of St at us . T he d e term i nati on of w hethera t enan tof a d w el l i ng i s l aw fu lly pr es enti n t he U ni t ed S tat es , and the det er m i nat i on of w hether
a w or keri s an unauthor i zed al i en s hal l be made byt he fe der al governm ent , pur s uant t o U ni t ed St at es C ode Ti t l e 8, Subse ct i on 1373( c)
. A det er m i nat i on of s uch s t atus of an i ndi vi dual byt he f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t sh a ll cre a te a re b u ttab le p re su m p ti o n a s to t hati ndi vi dual ’ s s t atus i n anyj udi ci al pr ocee di ngs br ought pur s uantt o t hi s or di nance . T he C our tm ayt ake j udi ci al not i ce of any ver i fi cat i on of t he i ndi vi dual pr evi ous l ypr ovi ded byt he fe der al governm ent an d m ayr eques tt he fe der al governm entt o pr ovi d e aut om at ed ort es t i m oni al ver i fi cat i on p u rsua n t t o U n it ed S tat es C o d e T it le 8, S u b sec ti o n 1 3 7 3 (c).167 B . R ent al R egi s t rat i on O rdi nance ( O rdi nance 2006- 13) E S T AB L I S HI NG A R E GI S T RA T I ON P RO GRA M F OR RESI DEN TI AL RENTA L PROPERTI ES; REQ UI RI NG ALL OW NER S OF RESI DEN TI AL R ENTA L PR O PERTI ES TO D ESI G N A TE A N A G EN T FO R SE RV I CE O F PRO CE SS; AND P RE S CR I BI NG DUT I E S OF OWNE RS , AGE NT S AND OC CU P ANT S ; DI RE CT I NG T HE DES I GNAT I ON OF AG ENTS; E STA BLI SHI NG FEES FOR TH E CO STS AS S OC I ATED WI T H T HE RE GI S T RA T I ON OF RE NT AL P RO P E RT Y; AND P RE S CR I BI NG P E NAL T I E S F OR VI OL AT I ONS BE I T OR DAI NE D B Y T HE GOVE RN I NG BODY O F THE CI TY OF HAZLE TON AND I T I S HERE BY O R D A I N E D A N D W I T H T H E A U T H O R I T Y O F T H E S A ME A S FO LLO W S: S E CT I ON 1
. DE F I NI T I ONS AND I NT E RP RE T AT I ON. T he fol l ow i ng w ords, w h en used i n thi s or di nance , s hal l have t he m eanings a sc rib e d t o them i n thi s sect i on , excep ti n those i nst ance s w her e the cont extcl ear l yi ndi cat es ot herw i s e. W hen
no ti nco nsi st ent w i t h the con t ext, w ords used i n the pres ent t ense i ncl ude the futur e; w or ds i n t he pl ur al num beri ncl ude the168 sin g u lar n u m b e r; w o rd s in th e sin g u lar sh a ll i n c lu d e th e p lu ra l, and w or ds i n t he masc ul i ne s hal l i ncl ude the fem i ni ne and the
n e u te r.
a. A G E N T - I ndi vi dual of l egal m ajorit yw ho has been des i gnat ed byt he O w neras t he age nt of t he O w nerorm anage r of the Pr oper tyundert he pr ovi s i ons of thi s or di nance . b. C I T Y - C i t yof H azl et on
c. C I T Y C O D E – t he bui l di ng code ( pr oper t yM ai nt enanc e C ode 1996 as am en d edors uper cede d) offi ci al l yadopt ed byt he g o v e rn in g b o d yo f

th e C ity , o r o th e r su c h c o d e s o f f ic ia lly des i gnat ed byt he governi ng body of t he C i t yfort he r egul at i on of cons tru cti o n , alt era ti o n , ad d it ion , rep air, rem o v al, d emol i t i on, l ocat i on, occupa ncyand mai nt enanc e of bui l di ngs and structures. d
. Z O N IN G O R D IN A N C E

– Z o n in g o rd in a n c e a s o f f icia lly adopt ed byt he C i t yof H azl et on, Fi l e of Counci l # 95- 26 ( as
am en d ed ).
e. O FFICE – T he O ffi ce of C ode Enfor cementfort he C i t yof H azl et on. f. D W E L L I N G U N I T – a s i ngl e habi t abl e uni t , pr ovi di ng l i vi ng fac i l i t i es for one or m or e per s ons , i ncl udi ng per m anents pace for169 l i vi ng, s l eepi ng, eat i ng, cooki ng an d bathi ng and s ani t at i on,
w hetherfur ni s hed or unfurni s hed. T her e m aybe more t han one D w el l i ng U niton a P rem i ses. g . D O R M IT O R Y - a res id e n c e h a ll o f f e re d a s s tu d e n t o r f

a c u lty hous i ng t o acc om m odat e a c ol l ege oruni ver s i t y , pr ovi di ng l i ving or sl eeping room s for i nd i vidual s orgr oups of indivi du al s,
w ith o r w ith o u t co o k in g f a c ili ties a n d w ith o r w ith o u t p riv a te baths. h. I N SPE C T O R - anyper s on author i zed byL aw orO r di nance t o i ns pectbui l di ngs ors y s t ems, e. g. zoni ng, hous i ng, pl um bi ng,
e lec trica l sy ste m s, h e a t sy ste m s, m e c h a n ica l sy ste m s a n d h e a lth
nece s s aryt o oper at e orus e bui l d ing s w i t hi n t he C i t yof H a z leto n . A n In sp e c to r w o u ld in c lu d e th o se id e n tifie d in S e c tio n 8 – E n f

o rc e m e n t. i
. F IR E D E PA R T M E N T – t he Fi r e D epart m entof the C i t yof H az let o n o r an ym em b er the reo f, an d inclu d es th e C h ief o f F ir e
orhi s des i gnee. j
. H O T E L – a bui l di ng orpar tof a bui l di ng i n w hi ch l i vi ng and
s l eepi ng acc om m odat i ons ar e us ed p ri m ar i l yfort r ans i ent
o c c u p a n c y , m a yb e re n ted o n a d a il y b a s is , an d d e sk se rv ice is provided, i n ad dit i on t o one o r m ore of the foll ow i ng ser vices :170 m ai d, t el ephone, bel l hop s er vi ce, ort he furni s hi ng orl aunder i ng of li nen s. k. L E T FO R O C C U PA N C Y – t o per m i t , pr ovi de oroffe r , for
cons i der at i on, pos s es s i on or occupa ncy of a bui l di ng, dw el l i ng uni t , r oom i ng uni t , pr emi s e ors t ructur e by a per s on w ho i s not t he l egal ow nerof rec o rd ther eof, pur s uantt o a w r i t t en or
unw r i t t en l eas e, agr eement or l i cens e, or pur s uant t o a r ecor ded
orunr ecor ded agr eementorcontr actfort he s al e of l and. l. M O T E L – a b u ild in g o r g ro u p o f b u il d in g s w h ich c o n tain l i vi ng and s l e e p i ng acc om m odat i ons us ed pr i m ar i l yfort r ans i ent
o c c u p a n c y , m a yb e re n te d o n a d a ilyb a sis , an d d e sk se rv ice is pr ovi ded, and has i ndi vi dual entr ance s fr om out s i de t he bui l di ng to se rv e e a c h su c h liv in g o r sle e p in g u n it.
m . O C C U P A N T – a p e rso n a g e 1 8 o r o ld e r w h o re sid e s a t a P rem i ses.
n. O PE R A T O R – anyper s on w ho has char ge, car e orcontr ol of
a P r e m i s e s w h i c h i s o f

f e r e d o rl e tf

o ro c c u p a n c y.
o. O W N E R – any Per s on, A gent , or O per at or havi ng a l egal or equi t abl e i nt er es ti n t he pr oper t y ; orr ecor ded i n t he off i ci al
re c o rd s o f

th e sta te, c o u n ty , o r m u n icip a litya s h o ld in g tit le to t h e p r o p e r t y; o ro t h e r w i s e h a v i n g c o n t r o l o f t h e p r o p e r t y,171 i ncl udi ng t he guar di an of t he est at e of a nys uch per s on, and the
exec ut ororadmi ni s t r at orof the es t at e of s uch per s on i f or der ed t o t ake pos s es s i o n o f rea l pr oper t ybya C our tof compet ent j ur i s di ct i on. p. O W N E R – O C C U PA N T
- an ow nerw ho r esi d es i n a D w el l i ng U nit on a regul ar per m anen tbasi s, or w ho other w i se occupi es a nonr es i dent i al por t i on of t he Pr emi s es on a re g ul ar perm anen tbasi s. q. PE R SO N – anyper s on, par t ner s hi p, fi r m , as s oci at i on,
corpor at i on, or m uni ci pal author i t yoranyot hergr oup act i ng as
a sin g le u n it. r. P O L IC E D E P A R T M E N T – th e P o lice D e p a rtm e n t o f th e C ity of H azl et on oranym ember t her eof s w or n t o enfor ce l aw s and
o rd in a n c e s in th e C ity , an d in c lu d e s th e C h ief o f P o lice o r h is des i gnee.
s . PR E M I SE S – anypar cel of r eal pr oper t y i n t he C i t y , i ncl udi ng the lan d a n d a ll b u il d ing s an d stru cture s in w h ich o n e o r m o re R ent al U ni t s ar e l ocat ed. t. R E N T A L U N IT

– m e a n s a D w e lli n g U n it o r R o o m in g U n it
w h ic h is L et fo r O cc u p an cyan d is oc cu p ied b yo n e o r m o re T enan t s.172 u. R O O M I N G U N I T – anyr oom or gr oups of r oom s for m i ng a
s i ngl e habi t abl e uni toccupi ed ori nt ended t o b e o cc u p i ed for sl eeping o r l i ving, bu tno tfor coo king pu rposes.
v. T E N A N T – any Per s on author i zed by t he O w ner o r A g ent
w ho occupi es a R ent al U ni tw i t hi n a Pr emi s es r eg ardl es s of
w hethersuch P ers on has exe cuted a l ease for sai d P rem i ses. S E C T I O N 2
. A P P O I N T ME N T O F A N A G E N T A N D / OR M AN AG ER E ach O w nerw ho i s notan O w ner - occupa nt , orw ho d o es not
r es i de i n t he C i t y of H azl et on or w i t hi n a t en ( 10) m i l e ai rr adi us of t he C i t yl i m i t s , s hal l appoi ntan A gentw ho s hal l r es i de i n t he C i t yor w i t hin a t en (10) m i l e ai r r adius of t he C i t yl i m i t s. S E CT I ON 3
. DUT I E S OF T HE OWNE R A ND/ OR AGE NT
a. T he O w nerhas t he dutyt o m aintain the Pr emi s es i n good
r epai r , cl ean a nd s ani t arycondi t ion, and t o m ai nt ai n t he Pr emi s es i n compl i ance w i t h t he curr entC odes , B ui l di ng C odes and Z oni ng O r di nance of t he C i t y of H azl et on. T he O w nerm ay d e leg a te im p lem e n tatio n o f th e se re sp o n sib ili ties to a n A g e n t. b. T he dut i es of t he O w nerand/ orA gents h all be t o r ece i ve not i ces and corr es pondence , i ncl udi ng s er vi ce of pr oces s , fr om t he C i t yof H azl et on; t o arr ange for t he i ns pect i on of t he R ent al173 U ni t s ; do orarr an g e for the per for m ance of m ai nt enanc e, clea n ing , rep air, p est co n tr o l, sn o w an d ice rem o v al, an d en su re
con t i nu ed co m pli ance o f t he P rem i ses w ith t he cu rr ent C od es, B ui l di ng C odes and Zoni ng O r di nance i n eff ecti n t he C i t yof H a z leto n , as w e ll as a rra n g e f o r g a rb a g e re m o v a l.
c. T he name, ad d res s and t el ephone numberof the O w nerand A gent , i f appl i cabl e, s hal l be re por t ed t o t he C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce i n w ri t i ng up on regi st eri ng t he R ental U nit s. d. N o D w el l i ng U ni ts hal l be occ upi ed, know i ngl ybyt he O w ner
orA gent , b y a number of per s ons t hati s i n exce s s of the
re q u ir e m e n ts o u tl in e d in 2 0 0 3 In ter n a tio n a l P ro p e rty M ai nt enanc e C ode, C hapt er4, L i ght , V ent i l at i on, and O ccupa ncyL i m i t s , Sect i on PM
- 404. 5, O ver cr ow di ng, orany updat e ther eof, a copyof w hi ch i s appende d her et o and made a par ther eof. SECTI ON 4
. NO TI CES
a. W heneve ran I ns pect ororC ode E n fo r cementO ffi cer det e r mi n e s t h a t a n y Re n t a l Uni t o r Pr e mi s e s f a i l s t o me et t he
r equi r ement s s etfor t h i n t he appl i cabl e C odes , t he I ns pect oror C ode E nfor cement O ffi cers hal l i s s ue a c or r ect i on not i ce s et t i ng f o rth th e v io latio n s a n d o rd e rin g th e O c c u p a n t, O w n e r o r A g e n t,174 as approp ri at e, t o co rr ectsuch v i olat i on s. T h e n o tice sh a ll: 1) B e i n w r i t i ng; 2) D es cr i be the l ocat i on and natur e of the vi ol at i on; 3) E s t abl i s h a r eas onabl e t i m e fort he cor r ect i on of the vi ol at i on. b. A l l not i ces shal l be s er ved upon the O ccupa nt , O w neror A g en t, as a p p li ca b le, p erso n all yo r byce rt ified m ail , return
r e c e i p t r e q u e s t e d
. A c o p y o f a n y n o t i c e s s e r v e d s o l e l y o n an O ccupa nt s hal l al s o be pr ovi ded t o t he O w nerorA gent . I n t he event s er vi ce i s fi r s t at t empt ed by m ai l and t he not i ce i s r etur ned by t he pos t al author i t i es m ar ked “uncl ai m ed” or“r efus ed”, t hen th e C o d e E n f

o rc e m e n t O f

f ice o r P o lice D e p a rtm e n t sh a ll at t empt del i very by per s onal s er vi ce on the O ccupa nt , O w neror A gen t , as appli cable. T he C od e E n f o rc e m ent O ffi ce shal l al so p o st t he not i ce at a cons pi cuous pl ace on t he Pr emi s es . If per s o n al s er vi ce di r ect ed t o t he O w nerorA gentcannotbe
acc om pl i s hed aft er a r eas onabl e att empt t o do s o, t hen the not i ce
m ay be sent t o the O w ner or A gen t , as appli cable, att he ad dress
s t at ed on the mostcurr entr egi s t r at i on app li ca t i on fort he Pr emi s es i n ques t i on, byr egu l a rf i r s tcl as s m ai l , pos t age pr epai d. I f s uch not i ce i s notr etur ned bythe pos t al author i t i es w i t hi n fi ve175 ( 5) day s of i t s depos i ti n t he U
. S. M ai l , t hen i ts hal l be dee m ed t o have be en del i ver ed t o and r ece i ved by t he addr es s ee on the f if th d a yf o llo w in g its d e p o sit in th e U n ited S tate s M a il.
c . F o r p u rp o se s o f

th is O rd in a n c e , an yn o tice h e re u n d e r th a t is gi ven t o t he A gents hal l be dee m ed as n ot i ce gi ven t o t he O w n er. d . T h e re sh a ll b e a re b u ttab le p re su m p tio n th a t an yn o tice th a t is gi v en t o t he O ccupa nt , O w nerorA gentundert hi s or di nance sh a ll h a v e b e e n re c e iv e d b y su c h O c c u p a n t, O w n e r or A g e n t if t he not i ce w as s er ved i n t he m anner pr ovi ded byt hi s or di nance . e. Subj ectt o par agr aph 4. d above, a cl ai m ed l ack of know l edge byt he O w nerorA gent , i f appl i cabl e, of anyvi ol at i on her eunder
c ited sh a ll b e n o d e f

e n se to c lo su re o f

re n tal u n its p u rsu a n t to Sect i on 9, as l ong as al l not i ces pr er equi s i t e t o s uch pr ocee di ngs ha v e b e e n g i v e n a n d d e e me d r e c e i v e d i n a c c o r d a n c e wi t h t he pr ovi s i ons of t hi s or di nance . f. A l l not i ces s hal l cont ai n a r eas onabl e t i m e t o corr ect , ort ake
s t eps t o corr ect , vi ol at i ons of t he above. T he O ccupa nt , O w ner or A gen t to w ho m t he n oti ce w as addressed m ayrequest addi t i onal t i m e t o corr ectvi ol at ion s . R eques t s foraddi t i onal tim e m u st b e in w riting a n d e ith e r d e p o site d in th e U .S . M a il176 ( pos t - m ar ked) orhanddel i ver ed t o th e Code E nfor cementO ffi ce
w ith in f iv e ( 5 ) d a ys o f

re c e ip t o f

th e n o tice b yth e O c c u p a n t, O w nerorA gent . T he C i t yr et ai ns t he righ t to de nyorm odi fy tim e e x ten sio n re q u e sts . If th e O c c u p a n t, O w n e r o r A g e n t is at t empt i ng i n good fai t h t o corr ectvi ol at i ons but i s unabl e t o do
s o w i t hi n t he t i m e s peci fi ed i n t he not i ce, t he O ccupa nt , O w ner
orA gent s hal l have the r i ghtt o r eques ts uch addi t i onal t i m e as
m ay be need ed to com plet e t he co rr ect i on w ork, w hich r equ est
s hal l notbe unr eas onabl yw i t hhel d. g . F a ilu r e to c o rre c t v io latio n s w ith in th e tim e p e rio d sta ted in t he not i ce of vi ol at i on s hal l r es ul ti n s uch ac t i ons orpenal t i es as
ar e s etfor t h i n Se cti o n 10 of thi s or di nance . I f the not i ce of vi ol at i on r el at es t o act i ons orom i s s i ons of the O ccupa nt , and the O ccupa ntfai l s t o m ake the nec es s arycorr ect i on, t he O w neror A gen tm aybe requ i red t o rem edyt h e c o n d it i on . N o ad verse
a c ti o n sh a ll b e tak e n a g a in st a n O w n e r o r A g e n t f o r f a ilu re to
re m e d ya c o n d iti o n so lo n g a s th e O w n e r o r A g e n t is a c tin g w ith due di l i gence and t aki ng bona fi de s t eps t o corr ectt he vi ol at i on, i nc l ud i ng bu t no t l i mi t e d t o pu r s ui ng r e medi e s un de ra l ease agre ement w i t h an O ccupa ntorT enant . T he C i t ys hal l notbe pr ecl uded fr om pur s ui ng an enf o rce m ent act i on agai ns tany177 O ccupa ntorT enantw ho i s deemed t o be i n vi ol at i on. S ECT I ON 5
. I NSURANCE In o rd e r to p ro tec t th e h e a lth , sa f e tya n d w e lf

a re o f th e re sid e n ts
o f th e C ity , itis h ere b yd ec lared that the c itysh all req u ir e h az ard and gener al l i abi l i t y i ns ur ance for al l pr oper t y ow ners l et t i ng p r o p e r t y f

o ro c c u p a n c y i n t h e C i t y. a. M inim u m co v era g e; us e o f in su ran ce p roc ee d s. A ll O w n ers
s hal l be r equi r ed t o obt ai n a mi ni m um of fi ftyt hous and ($5 0 , 0 0 0 .0 0 ) do ll ars in g en era l l iabili tyinsu ran ce , an d h az ard
an d ca su alt y insu ran ce in an am o u n t su ff ici en t to ei ther res tore
o rr e m o v e t h e b u i l d i n g i n t h e e v e n to f a f i r e o ro t h e rc a s u a l t y. Fur t her, i n t he eve ntof anyfi r e orl os s cover ed bys uch i ns ur ance , i ts hal l be the obl i gat i on o f the O w nert o us e s uch i ns ur ance pr ocee ds t o caus e the r es t or at i on ordemol i t i on or
o th e r rep a ir o f

th e p ro p e rtyin a d h e re n c e to th e C ityC o d e a n d a ll app l i cable ordi nan ces. b. Pr oper t y ow ner s t o pr ovi de C i t yw i t h i ns ur ance i nfor m at i on. O w ners sh al l be r equi r ed t o pl ace t hei ri ns ur ance company name, pol i cy num berand pol i cyexpi r at i on dat e on thei rR ent al Pr oper t yR egi s t r at i on for m , ori n t he al t ernat i ve, t o pr ovi de the C o d e Enfor cementO ffi ce w i t h a copyof a c er t i fi cat e of178 in su ra n c e . A re g istra tio n C e rtific a te ( se e S e c tio n 6 b e lo w ) sh a ll not be i s s ued t o any O w nerorA gentunl es s t he af or ement i oned i nfor m at i on has been pr ovi ded t o t he C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce. T he C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l be i nfor m ed of a nychange i n pol i ci es fora part i cul ar r ent al pr oper t yorcanc el l at i on of a pol i cyfors ai d pr oper t y w i t hi n t hi r t y ( 30) day s of sai d change or
canc el l at i on. SEC T ION 6. RE N TA L R EG I STR A TI O N A N D LI CE N SE REQ UI REM ENTS
a. No Pe r s o n s h a l l h e r e a f t e ro c c u p y , a l l o w t o b e o ccupi ed, advert i s e foroccupa ncy , s ol i ci toccupa nt s for , or l ett o another per s on for occupa ncy anyR ent al U ni tw i t hi n t he C i t yforw hi ch an appl i cat i on for l i cens e has not been m ade and fi l ed w i t h t he C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce a nd forw hi ch ther e i s notan ef fec t i ve l i cens e. I ni t i al appl icati on and r enew al s hal l be made upon for m s fur ni s hed byt he C ode Enfor cement O ff ic e fors uch purpos e and s hal l s pec i fi cal l yr equi r e the fol l ow i ng m i ni m um i nfor m at i on: 1) N ame, m ai l i ng addr es s , s t r eet addr es s and phone numberof t he O w ner , and i f t he O w neri s nota natur al per s on, t he name, addr es s and phone numberof a de s i gnat ed r epr es ent at i ve of the179 O w n er. 2) N ame, m ai l i ng addr es s , s tr eet addr es s and phone numberof t he A gentof t he O w ner , i f appl i cabl e. 3) T he s t r eetaddr es s of the Pr emi s es bei ng r egi s t er ed. 4) T he number and t ypes of uni t s w i t hi n t he Pr emi s es ( D w el l i ng U ni t s orR oom i ng U ni t s ) T he O w nerorA gents hal l not i fyt he C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce of anychange s of the above i nfor m at i on w i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of s uch cha nge. b. T he i ni t i al appl i cat i on for r egi s t r at i on and l i cens i ng s hal l be
m ade bypersona l l yfi l i ng an appl i cat i on w i t h t he C ode E nfor cement O ffi ce by N ovember 1, 2006. T her eaf t er , anynew appl i cant s hal l fi l e an a ppl i cat i on befor e the Pr emi s es i s l etfor occupa ncy , orw i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) day s of becomi ng an O w nerof
a c u rre n tly re g iste re d P re m ise s. O n e a p p lica tio n p e r p ro p e rtyis
r equi r ed, as eac h pr oper t yw i l l r ece i ve i t s ow n l i cens e.
c. U pon r ece i pt of t he i ni t i al appl i cat i on oranyr enew al t her eof and the paym entof appl i cabl e fe es as s etfor t h i n Sect i on 7 below , the C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l i s s ue a Rent al R egi s t r at i on L i cens e t o t he O w nerw i t hi n t hi r t y( 30) d ay s of
re c e ip t o f

p a ym e n t. d. E ach ne w l i cens e i s s ued her eunder , and ea ch r enew al l i cens e,180 s hal l expi r e on O ct ober31 of ea ch y ear . T he C ode Enfor cement O ffi ce s hal l m ai l l i cens e r enew al appl i cat i ons t o t he O w neror d esig n ated A g e n t o n o r be fo re S ep tem b er 1 o f e ac h y ea r. R e n e w a l ap p lica tio n s a n d f e e s m a yb e r e tu rn e d b ym a il o r in p e rso n to th e C o d e E n f

o rc e m e n t O f

f ice . A re n e w a l lic e n se w ill notbe i s s ued unl es s t he appl i cat i on and appr opr i at e fe e has been
r emi t t ed. SEC TI O N 7. FEES.
a. A nnual L i cens e Fee. T her e s hal l be a l i cens e fe e fort he i ni t i al l i cens e and a n annual r enew al fee t her eaft er . Fees s hal l be
as s es s ed aga i ns t an d p ay abl e byt he O w neri n t he amount of $5. 00 perR ent al U ni t , pay abl e att he t i m e of i ni t i al r egi s t r at i on and annua l r enew al , as m o re speci fi cal l ys etfor t h i n Sect i on 6 above. b. O ccupa ncy Per m i t Fee. T her e s hal l be a one
- t i m e occ upancy p e rm it f e e o f $ 1 0 .0 0 f

o r e v e ryn e w O c c u p a n t, w h ich is p a y a b le b yth e O c c u p a n t. F o r p u rp o se s o f in iti a l re g istra tio n u n d e r th is
or di nance , t hi s fe e s hal l be pai d foral l curr entO ccupa nt s by N ovember 1, 2006. T her eaf t er , pr i ort o occu p y i ng anyR ent al U ni t , al l O ccupa nt s s hal l obt ai n an occ upancy per m i t . I ts hal l be th e O c c u p a n t’s re sp o n si b il it yto su b m it an o c c u p a n c yp e rm it181 appl i cat i on t o t he C ode Enfor cement O ff ice, payt he fe e and
o b tain th e o c c u p a n c y p e rm it. If th e re a re m u lti p le O c c u p a n ts in
a s i n g l e Re n t a l Un i t , e a c h Oc c u p a n t s h a l l o b t a i n h i s o rh e ro wn p e rm it. O w n e r o r A g e n t s h a ll n o tify a ll p ro sp e c tiv e O c c u p a n ts of t hi s r equi r ement and s hal l not per m i t occupa ncy of a Rent al U n it u n les s th e O c c u p a n t f irst o b tain s a n o c c u p a n c yp e rm it. E ach occupa ncy per m i t i s s ued i s val i d onl yfort he O ccupa ntfor
as l ong as t he O ccupa ntcont i nues t o occupyt he R ent al U ni tfor
w hi ch s uch perm i tw as appl i ed. A nyr el ocat i on t o a di ffe r ent R ent al U ni tr eq u i r e s a new occupa ncyper m i t . A l l O ccupa nt s age 65 and ol der , w i t h adequa t e pr oof of a ge, s hal l be exe m ptfr om p a y in g th e p e rm it fe e , b u t sh a ll b e o th e rw ise re q u ire d to c o m p ly
w i t h t hi s s ect i on and the r es tof the O r di nance . 1
. Ap p l i c a t i o n f

o ro c c u p a n c yp e r mi t s s h a l l b e ma d e u p o n f o r ms fur ni s hed byt he C ode E nfor cement O ffi ce for s uch purpos e and
s hal l s peci fi cal l yr equi r e the fol l ow i ng m i ni m um i nfor m at i on: a) N ame of O ccupa nt b) M ai l i ng addr es s of O ccupa nt
c ) S tre e t ad d re ss o f

R e n tal U n it fo r w h ich O c c u p a n t is app l y i ng , i f differ ent fr om m ai l i ng add res s d ) N am e o f L an d lord182 e) D at e of l eas e comm ence m ent f) Pr oof of a ge i f cl ai m i ng exempt i on fr om t he perm i tfee g ) P ro p e r id e n tific a tio n sh o w in g p ro o f o f leg a l citiz e n sh ip and/ orr es i dency 2 . U p o n re c e ip t o f

th e a p p lica tio n a n d th e p a ym e n t o f a p p lica b le fee s as s et for t h above, t he C ode Enfor cementO ffi ce s hal l i s s ue
a n O c c u p a n c y P e r m i tt o t h e O c c u p a n ti m m e d i a t e l y. S E CT I ON 8
. E NF OR CE M E NT
a . T h e f o llo w in g p e rso n s a re h e re b ya u th o riz e d to e n f o rc e th is O r di nance : 1. T he C hi ef of

Pol i ce 2. A nyPol i ce O ffi cer 3. C ode Enfor cementO ffi cer 4. T he Fi r e C hi ef 5. D eputyFi r e C hi ef of t he C i t yof H azl et on. 6. H eal t h O ffi cer 7. D i r ect orof Publ i c W or ks b. T he des i gnat i on of anyper s on t o enfor ce thi s O r di nance or
a u t h o r i z a t i o n o f

a n I n s p e c t o r , w h e n i n w r i t i n g , a n d s i g n e d b y a per s on author i zed by S ec t i on 8. a t o des i gnat e orauthor i ze a n In sp e c to r to e n f

o rc e th is O rd in a n c e , sh a ll b e p rim a f a c ie183 evi dence of s uch author i t ybefor e the M agi s t er i al D i s t r i ctJ udge, C our tof C om mon Pl eas , oranyot herC our t , admi ni s t r at i ve body of t he C i t y , orof t hi s comm onw eal t h, and t he des i gnat i ng D i r ect ororSuper vi s orneed notbe ca l l ed as a w i t nes s t her et o. SEC TI O N 9. FA I LU RE TO CO RR EC T V I O LA TI O N S. I f any Per s on s hal l fai l , r efus e or negl ect t o compl y w i t h a not i ce of vi ol at i on as s et for t h i n Sect i on 4 above, t he C i t ys hal l have t he ri g h tt o f

i l e a n e n f

o r c e me n ta c t i o n wi t h t h e M a g i s t e r i al D istric t Ju d g e a g a in st a n yP e rso n th e C ityd e e m s to b e in vi ol at i on. I f, aft erhear i ng, the M agi s t er i al D i s t r i ctJ udge det er m i nes t hats uch Per s on orPer s ons ar e i n vi ol at i on, t he M agi s t er ia l D i s t r i ctJ udge may , att he C i t y ’ s r eques t , or dert he
c lo su re o f

th e R e n tal U n it(s), o r a ss e ss f in e s in a c c o rd a n c e w ith Sect i on 10 bel ow , unt i l s uch vi ol at i ons ar e cor r ect ed. Such or der
s hal l be s t ay ed pendi ng anyappea l to t he C our tof C om m on P l e a s o f L u z e r n e C o u n t y. S E C T IO N 1 0
. F A IL U R E T O C O M P L Y W IT H T H IS OR DI NA NC E; PENA LTI ES
a. E xcep t as pr ovi ded i n s ubs ect i ons 10. b and 10. c bel ow , any P e rso n w h o sh a ll v io late a n yp ro v is io n o f th e O rd in a n c e sh a ll, upon convi ct i on t her eof a ft ern o ti ce and a he ar i ng befor e the184 M agis t eri al D i stri ctJudg e, be sentenced t o p aya fi ne o f no tl ess than $100. 00 and notm or e than $300. 00 pl us cos t s , or im p riso n m e n t f

o r a ter m n o t to e x c e e d n in e ty(9 0 ) d a y s in defa ul tof paym ent . E very day t hat a vi ol at i on of thi s O r di nance
co n ti n u es sh all co n sti tute a sepa r at e off en se, pro v ided , h o w ev er, t hatfai l ur e t o r egi s t erorr enew orpayappr opr i at e fe es i n a tim e lym a n n e r sh a ll n o t co n stitu te a c o n tin u in g o f f e n se b u t sh a ll be a si ng l e off

ense no tsubjectt o d ai l yfi nes. b. A nyO w nerorA gentw ho s hal l al l ow anyO ccupa ntt o occupy
a R e n tal U n it w ith o u t f

irst o b tain in g a n o c c u p a n c y p e rm it i s in vi ol at i on of Sect i on 7. b and shal l , upon convi ct i on t her eof a ft er not i ce a nd a hea r i ng befor e the M ag i s t er i al D i s t r i ctJ udge, be
s ent ence d t o pay a fi ne of $1, 000 for eac h O ccupa nt t hatd o es nothave a n occupa ncyper m i tand $100 perO ccupa ntperday for eac h day t hatO w nerorA gentcont i nues t o al l ow eac h s uch O ccupa ntt o occupyt he R ent al U ni tw i t ho u t an occ upancy per m i taft erO w nerorA genti s gi ven not i ce o f such vi ol at i on p u rsu a n t to S e c tio n 4 a b o v e . O w n e r o r A g e n t sh a ll n o t b e h e ld l i abl e fort he ac t i ons of O ccupa n ts w ho al l ow addi t i onal
o cc u p an cyin an yR en tal U n itw ith o u t th e O w n er o r A g en t’ s
w r i t t en perm i s s i on, pr ovi ded thatO w nerorA gentt akes185 r eas onabl e s t eps to remove orr egi s t ers uch unauthor i zed O c c u p a n t(s) w ith in ten (1 0 ) d a y s o f lea rn in g o f

th e ir
u n a u th o riz e d o c c u p a n c yin th e R e n tal U n it.
c . An yOc c u p a n t h a v i n g a n o c c u p a n c yp e r mi tb u twh o a l l o ws addi t i onal occupa ncyi n a R ent al U ni t w i t hout fi r s t obt ai ni ng t he
w r i t t en perm i s s i on of the O w ner or A gentand w i t houtr equi r i ng
e a c h s u c h a d d i t i o n a l O c c u p a n tt o o b t a i n h i s o rh e ro wn occupa ncyper m i ti s i n vi ol at i on of Sect i on 7. b of t hi s or di nance and s hal l, upon convi ct i on t her eof a ft ernot i ce a nd a hea r i ng befor e the M agi s t er i al D i s t r i ctJ udge, be sent ence d t o paya fi ne of $1, 000 for eac h addi t i onal O ccupa nt per m i t t ed byO ccupa nt t hat does not have an occupa ncy per m i tand $100 peraddi t i onal O ccupa ntperdayfor eac h day t hatO ccupa ntcont i nues t o al l ow
e a c h su c h a d d iti o n a l O c c u p a n t to o c c u p yth e R e n tal U n it
w i t houtan occ upancyper m i taft erO ccupa nti s gi ven
w r i t t en not i ce of s uch vi ol at i on byO w nerorA gentorpur s uant t o Sect i on 4 above. SECTI ON 1 1
. APPLI CA BI LI TY A ND EXEM PTI ON S TO THE ORDI NAN CE T he pr ovi s i ons of t he ordi nance s hal l not appl y t o t he fol l ow i ng propert i es, w hich ar e exe m p t f rom regi strat i on and l i cense186 requi rem ents :
a. H otel s, M otel s and D orm i t ori es. b. R ent al U ni t s ow ned byPubl i c A ut ho ri ti es as defi ned under th e P e n n sy lv a n ia M u n icip a l A uthori t i es A ct , and D w el l in g U n its th a t ar e p a rt o f

a n e ld e rlyh o u sin g m u lti -u n it b u ild in g w h ich is 75% occupi ed byi ndi vi dual s overt he age of s i xt y - fi ve.
c. M ul t i
- dw el l i ng uni t s t hatoper at e un d er I nt ernal R evenue Ser vi ce Code Sect i on 42 conce r ni ng ent i t i es t hatoper at e w i t h an
e ld e rlyc o m p o n e n t. d . P ro p e rties w h ic h c o n sis t o f a d o u b le h o m e , h a lf

o f w h ich is l etforoccupa ncyand hal f of w hi ch i s O w ner -occupi ed as t he O w ner ’ s r es i dence
. S E CT I ON 1 2
. CO NF I DE NT I AL I T Y OF I NF OR M AT I ON A ll reg is tr a tio n in f

o rm a tio n c o llec ted b yth e C ityu n d e r th is O r di nance s hal l be m ai nt ai ned as confi dent i al and s hal l no t be di s s emi nat ed orr el eas ed t o anyi ndi v idu al , gr oup or
or gani zat i on foranypurpos e exc eptas pr ovi ded her ei n or
r equi r ed byl aw . I nfor m at i on m aybe r el eas ed onl y t o author i zed i n d i v i d u a l s w h e n r e q u i r e d d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f a n o f f i c i a l C i t y,
s t a t e o rf e d e r a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o ri n q u i r y. SEC TI O N 13
. SA V I N G S CL A U SE187 T hi s or di nance s hal l not aff ect vi ol at i ons of anyot heror di nance , code or r egul at i on exi s t i ng pr i ort o t he ef fec t i ve dat e ther eof a nd anys uch vi ol at i ons sh all b e governed and s hal l cont i nue t o be puni s habl e t o t he ful l ext ent of t he l aw under t he pr ovi s i ons of t hos e or di nance s , codes orr egul at i ons i n eff ectatt he t i m e the vi ol at i on w as comm i t t ed. SECTI ON 1 4
. SEVERA BI LI TY I f an ys e c t i o n , c l a u s e , p r o v i s i o n o rp o r t i o n o f t h i s Or d i n a n ce
s hal l be hel d i nval i d oruncons t i tut ion al byanyC our tof compet ent j ur i s di ct i on, s uch deci s i on s hal l not aff ect anyot her
s ect i on, cl aus e, pr ovi s i on orpor t i on of t hi s O r di nance s o l ong as i tr emai ns l egal l y enfor cea bl e w i t houtt he i nval i d por t i on. T he C i t yr es er ves t he r i ghtt o amend t hi s O rdin ance oranypor t i on t hereof from t i m e t o ti m e as i t shal l deem adv i sabl e i n the best in ter e st o f

th e p ro m o tio n o f

th e p u rp o se s a n d in ten t o f th is O r di nance , and the ef

fec t i ve admi ni s t r at i on t her eof. SECTI ON 1 5
. EFF ECTI VE D ATE T hi s O rdin ance s hal l become eff ect i ve i m m edi at el yupon appr oval
. T hi s O r di nance r epea l s O rdi nance num ber2004- 11
a n d r e p l a c e s s a m e i n i t s e n t i r e t y.188 SE C T I O N 16. T hi s O r di nance i s enac t ed byt he C ounci l of the C i t yof H azl et on undert he author i t yof the A ct of Legi s l atur e, A pr i l 13, 1972, A ctN o. 62, know n as t he “H om e R u le C har t erand O pt i onal Pl ans L aw ”, and al l ot herl aw s enfor cea bl e the St at e of Penns y l vani a.