Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama
691 F.3d 1236
11th Cir.2012Background
- HB 56 (Beason–Hammon Act) challenged section provisions 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 18, 27, 28, 30 as preempted or unconstitutional; district court issued injunctions on several sections; the United States case was consolidated for injunction purposes; the district court found no standing for section 28 challenges; the court stayed enforcement of some sections and granted partial injunctions; Alabama amended section 8, making some challenges moot; the court held section 28 likely unconstitutional under Equal Protection and that at least one plaintiff has standing; the companion United States case found preemption of sections 10, 11(a), 13(a), 27 and denied injunction for others, guiding the appellate disposition; the court ultimately affirms in part, reverses in part, vacates in part, dismisses in part, and remands.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Section 28 violates Equal Protection? | HICA argues section 28 burdens education rights of undocumented children. | State Officials contend data collection serves legitimate, non-rights-interfering purposes. | Likely to succeed; section 28 violates Equal Protection. |
| Standing to challenge section 28? | Alabama Appleseed shows organizational injury due to diverted resources. | Standing not established for other challengers. | At least one organization has standing; standing proven. |
| Section 8 moot after amendment; should injunction be vacated? | Section 8 classification remains invalid. | Amendment removed challenged feature; not enforceable as originally. | Injunction of section 8 vacated as moot; remand for dismissal. |
| Sections 10(e), 11(e), 13(h) moot due to preemption of underlying offenses? | Final sentences cloud constitutional issues even if underlying acts are preempted. | Companion case shows underlying prohibitions unenforceable; sentences moot. | Moot as to these sentences; injunction vacated. |
| Section 28 burden on Plyler rights justified by substantial state interest? | Impact on education requires heightened scrutiny not met by rational basis. | Data collection serves public interests; within state findings. | Not sustained under heightened scrutiny; Section 28 violates Equal Protection. |
Key Cases Cited
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1982) (strikes down education denial to undocumented children; heightened scrutiny where education at stake)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection scrutiny for classifications affecting fundamental rights/non-suspect groups)
- Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1978) (heightened scrutiny when a statute interferes with protected rights)
- Mem’l Hosp. v. Maricopa Cnty., 415 U.S. 250 (U.S. 1974) (context of right to interstate travel; heightened scrutiny considerations)
- Common Cause/Ga. v. Billups, 554 F.3d 1340 (11th Cir. 2009) (organizational standing where injury diverts resources to compliance)