Source: https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12186&amp;search=
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:21:10+00:00

Document:
On July 8, 2011, a group of non-profit organizations and individual plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, under 42 U.S.C. §1983, against the governor of Alabama and several other state and county officials. The plaintiffs, represented by public interest attorneys from the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the National Immigration Law Center among other organizations, sought declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the recently enacted H.B. 56 was preempted by federal law and therefore violated the U.S. Constitution. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that their organizations were affected by the legislation because their potential clients or members would be discouraged from seeking assistance or organizing for their rights by fears of being detained or questioned under the new law. The individual plaintiffs claimed that the new law would cause direct harm to them in a number of ways. A few weeks later, the plaintiffs filed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, requesting that the court prevent enforcement of H.B. 56 pending full resolution of the challenge.
On August 2, 2011, on the request of the U.S., the court consolidated this case with two others challenging H.B. 56, for purposes of the preliminary injunction adjudication. [See IM-AL-0005 and IM-AL-0007.] A month later, however, the court dissolved the consolidation order and ordered all pleadings to be filed in the separate cases, as appropriate.
The court granted amicus curiae status to many organizations, including many South and Central American countries, the NAACP, several fair housing organizations, the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, and the National Lawyers Guild. The court also requested supplemental briefs from both parties addressing the Equal Protection challenge to Section 28 of H.B. 56, which required school officials to document the immigration status of enrolling students, in preparation for an August 24, 2011 hearing on the preliminary injunction.
Following the hearing, the court ordered a temporary injunction, staying enforcement of the law until the court issued a detailed Memorandum Opinion on September 29, 2011. In the meantime, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint on September 16, 2011. The memorandum opinion released on September 29, 2011 granted the preliminary injunction for several sections of H.B. 56, denied as moot a preliminary injunction for sections previously enjoined in the United States v. Alabama related case, but denied outright the injunction for other sections.
That day, the plaintiffs filed an interlocutory appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit. They also filed an Emergency Motion to Stay/Enjoin Portions of H.B. 56 Pending Appeal. The appellate court denied this motion on October 5, 2011. While the case was pending before the court of appeals, and while United States v. Arizona (dealing with a very similar statute, in Arizona) was pending before the U.S. Supreme Court, the parties moved jointly to stay the normal rules regarding class certification.
On May 16, 2012, the Alabama legislature passed several amendments to H.B. 56 that affected the provisions enjoined by the court. On May 23, the parties filed a joint stipulation that one portion of the new law was effectively the same as a provision enjoined by the court, and so all parties agreed to abide by the injunction with respect to the new provision as well. The next day, defendants moved to dissolve the injunction regarding another section of the law based on changed circumstances. The defendants argued that the basis for the court's injunction had been altered by the legislature so the injunction was no longer necessary.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit issued its opinion, by Judge Charles Wilson, on August 20, 2012. (The same panel issued an opinion in the case about an equivalent statute, in Georgia, the same day.) The Court affirmed the district court with respect to the challenges to sections 12, 18, and 30. It held that at least one organization has standing to challenge section 28 and that the HICA the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the claim that section 28 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Therefore, the Court reversed the district court's decision regarding section 28 and remanded for the entry of a preliminary injunction.
Because the Alabama legislature had eliminated the challenged language from section 8, the Court vacated as moot the district court's injunction of that provision and remand for the dismissal of the challenge to that section. In light of the decision regarding the substantive provisions of sections 10, 11, and 13, the Court vacated as moot the district court's injunction of the last sentence of sections 10(e), 11(e), and 13(h). Finally, the Court found sections 10 and 27 preempted in the companion case brought by the United States, and dismissed as moot the HICA Plaintiffs' appeal as to those sections.
On April 29, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review the 11th Circuit ruling in the U.S. v. Alabama case, which had effectively barred Alabama from enforcing its law. 133 S. Ct. 2022 (2013); see IM-AL-0005.
On remand, on October 29, 2013, the parties submitted a proposed settlement agreement. The parties agreed that several provisions of the challenged law should be permanently enjoined including sections 28, 10, 13, 27, and 11(f), (g), and (a). Therefore, the state agreed to not enforce provisions that require schools to verify the immigration status of newly enrolled students, criminalize the solicitation of work of unauthorized workers, and criminalize failing to register one's immigration status.
The plaintiffs also agreed to dismiss the rest of their claims, but specified that a number of those agreements to dismiss (sections 12, 18, 19, and 20) depended on the defendants' representation that they would interpret the provisions to be consistent with U.S. v. Arizona and "neither require nor authorize state or local law-enforcement officers to stop, detain, arrest, or prolong the detention of any person for the purpose of ascertaining that person's immigration status or because of a belief that the person lacks lawful immigration status." In addition, the plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the rest of their claims and defendants agreed to pay $350,000 for attorney's fees and expenses.
On the same day, the parties in the related case, Alabama v. United States (IM-AL-0005), submitted a similar agreement and proposed order. The agreement permanently enjoined defendants from implementing the same provisions that would be enjoined in this case (sections 10, 11(a), 13, and 27). It also enjoined section 28 and 11(f) and (g). Pending the approval of the injunction of Section 28, the plaintiffs in Alabama v. United States agreed to dismiss that claim.
On November 25, 2013, the Court (Judge Sharon L. Blackburn) approved the settlement agreement, and ordered that the case be closed.
Plaintiff Description Several non-profit organizations dedicated to immigration rights advocacy and individuals, on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, who would be directly affected by implementation of Alabama's comprehensive immigration act.
Students' Immigration Status To Be Coded With "0" or "1" in Ala.

References: §1983
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.