Pedro Lozano v. City of Hazleton
724 F.3d 297
| 3rd Cir. | 2013Background
- City of Hazleton enacted two ordinances (IIRAO and RO) restricting employment of unauthorized workers and barring/penalizing rental housing for persons not lawfully present. Key features: business‑license suspensions, mandatory use/enrollment in E‑Verify for safe‑harbor, and a rental occupancy/registration scheme requiring proof of legal status.
- Plaintiffs challenged; District Court permanently enjoined enforcement after trial. Third Circuit initially affirmed (Lozano II), holding employment and housing provisions pre‑empted; Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting and later Arizona v. United States.
- On remand the Third Circuit reevaluated whether Whiting and Arizona changed its pre‑emption analysis and again addressed both employment and housing provisions.
- Court framed pre‑emption analysis under express, field, and conflict pre‑emption doctrines and examined whether Hazleton’s ordinances (1) fit within IRCA’s licensing savings clause, (2) conflict with federal verification (I‑9/E‑Verify) and procedures, or (3) intrude on the federal immigration field (residency/harboring/registration).
- Holding on remand: the employment provisions remain conflict pre‑empted (because they sweep beyond IRCA’s employer/employee scope, undermine the I‑9 scheme, and lack procedural safeguards), and the housing/registration provisions are field and conflict pre‑empted (impermissibly regulating residency, alien harboring, and creating a local registration requirement).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether IIRAO employment provisions are pre‑empted by federal law (IRCA/IIRIRA) | Hazleton's employment scheme is conflict pre‑empted because it reaches beyond IRCA (covers contractors, casual hires), coerces E‑Verify use, denies I‑9 safe harbor, and lacks IRCA procedural protections | Whiting permits state licensing sanctions and E‑Verify requirements; Hazleton’s law is a permissible licensing regulation that implements federal aims | Employment provisions conflict pre‑empted: ordinance sweeps beyond IRCA’s targeted employer/employee scope, undermines I‑9 uniformity and procedural safeguards, and obstructs federal objectives; injunction affirmed. |
| Whether E‑Verify enrollment/mandates in IIRAO are pre‑empted | Plaintiffs: Hazleton effectively coerces E‑Verify for nonemployees and attaches extra penalties for nonparticipation, conflicting with federal scheme | City: Whiting upheld state E‑Verify requirements and licensing laws; Hazleton follows federal verification processes | Court: Whiting supports state use of E‑Verify but does not validate Hazleton’s broader coercive scheme; E‑Verify mandate here contributes to conflict pre‑emption because of ordinance’s breadth and additional sanctions. |
| Whether housing/anti‑harboring provisions are pre‑empted as regulation of immigration (field pre‑emption) | Hazleton regulates residency and bans renting to aliens not lawfully present — an area occupied by federal law and core immigration policy | City: ordinances mirror federal prohibitions (harboring) and rely on federal status verification; they are concurrent enforcement, not regulation of immigration | Held: housing provisions are field pre‑empted — they impermissibly regulate who may reside in the locality and intrude on the federal field of alien harboring and residency. |
| Whether the RO rental‑registration scheme is pre‑empted (even severed from IIRAO) | Plaintiffs: the RO imposes local alien‑registration by requiring proof of lawful presence and penalizing failure to register — intruding on the federally occupied alien‑registration field | City: RO applies to citizens and noncitizens alike; it is not an alien registration statute and therefore not pre‑empted | Held: RO is field pre‑empted as an alien‑registration scheme despite applying to citizens as well; local registration of immigration status is precluded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 620 F.3d 170 (3d Cir. 2010) (initial Third Circuit opinion holding Hazleton ordinances pre‑empted)
- Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. 582 (2011) (upholding Arizona licensing law and state use of E‑Verify under IRCA savings clause)
- Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012) (invalidating several Arizona immigration provisions; reaffirming federal primacy in immigration field)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976) (distinction between permissible state regulation of employment and impermissible regulation of immigration)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (field pre‑emption in alien registration)
- Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgmt. Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88 (1992) (express and implied pre‑emption framework)
- Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (2000) (conflict pre‑emption where state action obstructs federal regulatory objectives)
- Ga. Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Ga., 691 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2012) (state harboring/related provisions field pre‑empted)
- United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding state immigration‑related measures pre‑empted)