Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal
793 F. Supp. 2d 1317
N.D. Ga.2011Background
- Georgia enacted HB87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011, with Sections 7, 8, and 19 at issue; most provisions take effect July 1, 2011.
- Plaintiffs allege HB87 will divert resources and chill rights of immigrants, organizations, and affiliates.
- Plaintiffs seek preliminary injunction to enjoin Sections 7 and 8; Defendants move to dismiss for lack of standing and jurisdiction.
- Court held a hearing and granted preliminary injunction for plaintiffs and granted in part/denied in part the motion to dismiss.
- Court addresses standing, preemption under Supremacy Clause, Fourth Amendment, right to travel, and Fourteenth Amendment challenges; Governor Deal and Attorney General Olens are proper parties.
- Remainder of HB87 provisions, including Section 19, are not preliminarily enjoined as to those issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing of individuals and organizations. | Plaintiffs have realistic threatened injuries from HB87. | Plaintiffs' injuries are speculative or hypothetical. | Plaintiffs have standing. |
| Section 8 preempts federal immigration law. | Section 8 undermines federal enforcement and conflicts with federal priorities. | State may assist in enforcement under federal framework; no preemption. | Section 8 preempted; likely to succeed on Supremacy Clause claim. |
| Section 7 preempts federal immigration provisions. | Section 7 creates state crimes conflicting with federal immigration scheme. | States may enact parallel penalties; not preempted. | Section 7 preempted; likely to succeed. |
| Fourth Amendment challenge to Section 8. | Investigations without probable cause prolonged during status checks violate Fourth Amendment. | Facial challenge; actual applications not shown; could be constitutional. | Fourth Amendment challenge granted in part; injunctive relief granted as to Sections 7 and 8. |
| Right to travel and equal protection/due process claims. | HB87 discriminates against noncitizens and interferes with travel rights and due process. | HB87 does not facially discriminate and imposes reasonable regulation. | Right to travel claim dismissed; Equal Protection and Due Process claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Church v. City of Huntsville, 30 F.3d 1332 (11th Cir. 1994) (standing when policy of arrests harms daily life; contends injury is concrete and imminent)
- Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983) (unrealistic fear does not establish standing; concrete threat required)
- Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555 (2009) (purpose of Congress governs preemption; field occupied by federal law matters)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (foreign relations and complete federal scheme preempt state law)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (state police power in employment cases; not preempted when peripheral concern)
- Whiting v. Chamber of Commerce, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011) (state licensing/regulation can operate with federal framework; not always preempted)
- Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of Puerto Rico, 906 F.2d 25 (1st Cir. 1990) (federal rights via statutes can be enforceable under §1983; preemption cases)
- Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85 (1983) (federal question jurisdiction over preemption challenges under §1331)