Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont
719 F.3d 931
8th Cir.2013Background
- Fremont voters adopted Ordinance No. 5165 restricting housing to illegal/unauthorized aliens.
- The ordinance requires occupancy licenses, disclosure of immigration status, and E-Verify for employers.
- District court severed and enjoined certain rental provisions, finding INA and FHA preemption.
- Plaintiffs challenge facial validity under federal immigration law, FHA, and Nebraska law; city defends as a valid local police power.
- District court held some rental provisions preempted and enjoined; non-preempted provisions remained pending.
- This court reverses preemption/FHA rulings, vacates injunction, and remands to dismiss complaints.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the rental provision facially preempted or conflict-preempted by federal law? | Plaintiffs contend the rental provisions obstruct federal removal policy. | Fremont argues provisions do not conflict with INA and are not impermissibly broad. | No facial preemption; no preemption proved on the record for rental provisions. |
| Do field preemption arguments (alien registration and anti-harboring) defeat the ordinance? | Plaintiffs claim occupancy/license scheme occupies a preempted field. | Court should limit field preemption; no complete occupancy of field shown. | Field preemption not established for alien registration or anti-harboring fields. |
| Does the FHA require proof of disparate impact, and do Keller/Juan/Juana Doe have standing? | Keller seeks FHA disparate impact; Martinez/Juan/Juana contend standing; Keller asserts standing for FHA claim. | Stance and pleading deficiencies bar FHA claims; disparate impact not proven. | Keller has standing; Martinez lacks timely FHA claim; court dismisses Keller’s FHA claim for disparate impact. |
| Is there Nebraska state-law preemption or severability affecting the outcome? | State-law conflicts with ordinance; preemption may void more provisions. | Nebraska police powers allow broad local ordinances; harmonization required. | State-law preemption/ severability rulings reversed; remand to dismiss complaints. |
Key Cases Cited
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. 1976) (limits on state regulation of aliens; not all alien-related laws preempted)
- Arizona v. United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (U.S. 2012) (preemption framework; selective invalidation of sections 3, 5(C), 6)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (U.S. 1941) (field preemption in alien registration contexts)
- Whiting (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting), 131 S. Ct. 1968 (U.S. 2011) (Savings clause; preemption analysis for employment verification law)
- Lozano v. Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010) (harboring/occupancy provisions; preemption considerations (vacated/en banc))
- Farmers Branch v. Farmers Branch, 675 F.3d 802 (5th Cir. 2012) (occupancy licenses; removal/immigration policy conflict)
- United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) (conflict preemption; harboring/removal-like provisions)