Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont

Mosby comment. without arguments table KELLER, Jr.; Doe; Jua H. Juan Fred super- of his early termination argues #2, laintiffs-Appell na Doe he appropriate release

vised P Appellees in civil detention years three ants/Cross some spent greatly was curtailed.” “freedom where his v. positive subsequent his Mosby emphasizes Shotkoski, FREMONT; Dale OF CITY community, having into transition Timothy Capacity; in his Official work steady housing and stable found Mullen, Capacity, De in his Official points to He also his release. since Appellants. fendants-Appellees/Cross sys- registration offender sex Minnesota’s for tem, he will be monitored under which Mercado; Jr.; Martinez, Martin Mario Mosby asserts that rest of his life. Doe; Mercado; Maria Jane Paula for dis- minimum remand we should Roe; Dahl; Nebraska Steven ACLU reasoning de- explain its court to trict Foundation; Food and Com United his motion. nying 22; Union, Local mercial Workers court did the district conclude that We Plaintiffs-Appel Harper, Blake presided had It abuse its discretion. Appellees lants/Cross acquainted well Mosby’s trial and was over record, criminal which with his extensive Shotkoski, Fremont; Dale of for violent offenses convictions includes Capacity his as Fremont attempted murder Official degree such first Mullen, Attorney; Timothy in his Of The district sexual assault. degree first of Mosby Capacity as Fremont Chief time that ficial was aware court Police, Defendants-Appellees/Cross § to his related been detained had Appellants transi- subsequent positive his proceeding, custody, his of life outside

tion to Fund; Unity Legal Defense American subjecting him sex as a offender status Legal Eagle Education and Forum Neither 18 monitoring. U.S.C. state Ap Fund, of Amici on Behalf Defense 3583(e) required case law nor relevant Appellants pellees/Cross of its denial explain court to the district release. supervised early termination Inc.; Raza, Jus of La National Council in its sum- of discretion see no abuse We Neighbors-Nebraska; Na tice for our motion. Mosby’s mary denial Housing Alliance; The tional Fair Association; The Major Chiefs Cities III. Asso Latino Peace Officers National America; ciation; court the district United States Accordingly, affirm we Housing of Nebraska- Mosby’s motion for termi- Fair Center denying order ‘ Iowa; Apartment Association supervised release. nation of Lincoln; Nebras Omaha Greater in the Appleseed Center for Law ka Apartment Interest; National Public Ap Behalf of Association, Amici on Appellees.1 pellants/Cross Ap- amici in are not Apartment Association” "Apartment of Greater Association 1. The peal No. 12-1708. the "National and Lincoln” and Omaha 12-1702, 12-1705, Nos. 12-1708. of Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit. Dec. 2012.

Submitted:

Filed: June IL, Rivas, argued, Chicago, for

Alonzo in 12-1702 and appellant/cross-appellees 12-1708. Newell, Fran- argued, San

Jennifer C. CA, cisco, appellant/cross-appellees for 12-1705 and 12-1708. brief, Siebert-Llera, on the Chi-

Aaron IL, appellee in appellant/cross for cago, 12-1702 and 12-1708. Sitorius, Peterson, L.

Alan E. Michelle brief, Wittier, Miller, Amy on the Terry R. NE, Bhandari, York, Lincoln, New Esha NY, appellee in 12-1705 appellant/cross and 12-1708. Kobach, argued, Kansas

Kris William brief, KS, Roe, on the City, Garrett Robert DC, appellee/cross-appel- for Washington, 12-1702,12-1705 and 12-1708. lants Stern, argued, Holly B. A. Thom- Mark Gross, as, Beth S. Brink- Mark Lenard Abate, mann, Benjamin P. M. Michael Shultz, Tenny, Jeffrey Eric Daniel and brief, DC, Washington, Sandberg, on the of America on for Amicus United States appellant/cross-appellees. behalf of the McDermott, brief, Arling- J. on the John ton, VA, Apartment for Association Lincoln and National Greater Omaha and Association. Apartment Lincoln, brief, Gould, Rebecca on NE, Appleseed Center for for Nebraska Public Law the Interest. brief, Joseph,

Lawrence John on the DC, Eagle Forum Edu- Washington, Legal cation and Defense Fund. Ellison, brief, on the Charles Shane Omaha, NE, Neigh- for Justice for our bors-Nebraska. McPherson, Background Bilik David Shiri I.

Mark York, NY, Wolf, brief, on the New for The Omaha, Located near “city Fremont is a Major Association and The Cities Chiefs of the first class” with a population of Latino Peace Officers Associa- National 26,000. approximately See Neb.Rev.Stat. tion. § In years, 16-101. recent reflected data, City’s U.S. Census Bureau His- Zall, brief, Rockville, Barnaby on the W. panic or Latino population nearly tripled, Hakola, brief, MD, Edith D. War- (4.3% 1,085 rising from in 2000 renton, VA, Unity Legal for The American (11.9%). City’s 3,149 population) to in 2010 Defense Fund. Census, According to the 2000 Latinos Dane, brief, Stephen M. on the Wash- then comprised City’s about 80% of the DC, ington, Housing for National Fair Al- foreign-born In population. a June 2010 liance, Housing Fair Center Nebraska- election, special after the Council de- Raza, Iowa and National Council of La pass measure, clined to a nearly identical Inc. adopted voters Ordinance No. 5165 amend- ing City’s municipal code. LOKEN, BRIGHT, Before Shortly before the Ordinance was to COLLOTON, Judges. Circuit effect, take Plaintiffs filed these facial chal- LOKEN, Judge. Circuit lenges, later consolidated the parties’ consent. alleged Plaintiffs that the Ordi- Fremont, In June voters Ne- law; preempted by nance is vio- braska, adopted Ordinance No. which Protection, Process, Equal lates the Due hiring and providing housing limits and Commerce Clauses of the United “illegal aliens” and “unauthorized Constitution; States violates Fair aliens,” terms defined in the Ordinance. 1981; Housing Act and 42 U.S.C. landlords, tenants, groups Two and em- City’s municipal exceeds the powers under “Plaintiffs,” ployers (collectively, sepa- They initially sought Nebraska law. pre- rately, “the Keller Plaintiffs” and “the liminary permanent injunctive as well as Plaintiffs”) Martinez filed these actions City relief. passed When the Council enforcement, enjoin federal court to con- resolution not to enforce the Ordinance Ordinance, tending face, that the on its issue, until 14 days after final decisions unconstitutional and violates federal and preliminary Plaintiffs withdrew their in- Ruling state laws. on cross-motions for junction motions. summary judgment, the district court sev- enjoined ered and enforcement of certain employment provisions Ordinance’s provisions, rental concluding require “[ejvery entity per- ... business preempted by Immigration the forming City” and Na- work within the to partici- (“INA”), tionality §§ Act pate “E-Verify Program,” 8 U.S.C. 1101 et the a federal seq., and violate the Fair Housing employers verify Act database that allows (“FHA”), §§ 42 seq. U.S.C. 3601 et Keller the prospec- work-authorization status of Fremont, City F.Supp.2d v. 853 959 tive employees. requirement This does (D.Neb.2012). appeal. apply Both sides Re- not hiring independent novo, viewing hiring these issues de we reverse contractors or “to the intermittent preemption the district FHA court’s of casual labor for domestic tasks.” Viola- licenses, rulings, respects, may affirm in all other per- vacate tors lose their business injunction, mits, contracts, loans, grants the court’s and remand with or from the City. directions to complaints. Relying dismiss Plaintiffs’ on the Court’s deci- 938 unit. The lessor must obtain Whiting, dwelling Commerce

sion Chamber of — An occupancy license. U.S.-, L.Ed.2d of the renter’s copy deter- (2011), subsequently concluded renter who is the district court alien is not in the lawfully present of the Ordinance portion that this mined to be not it is law because by federal be deemed to have States “shall United licensing or similar law” and “essentially a the lease. breached” in the savings clause falls within the thus occupan- of the Promptly after issuance Act of and Control Immigration Reform license, Department the Fremont Police cy 1324a(h)(2). (“IRCA”), 8 U.S.C. verify government to must ask the federal Keller, F.Supp.2d at 971. Plaintiffs do of an alien renter. immigration status ruling. appeal this that the government reports If federal prospective pro- The Ordinance’s “unlawfully present,” police renter is ap- of these primary are the focus visions notice; deficiency send the renter make it unlawful These peals. sixty days to establish renter then has entity to rent or business person to do presence. If the renter fails lawful to, by, illegal “an permit occupancy so, the federal police must contact alien, disregard in reckless knowing or again verify the renter’s government entered, to, has come the fact that an alien govern- If the federal immigration status. in viola- remains in the United States that the renter is “un- again reports ment “illegal An alien” is “an alien tion of law.” the rent- lawfully present,” police send lawfully in the United present is not who revoking landlord a notice er and the States, according to the terms United license, forty-five days effective occupancy seq.” Title Section et States Code may per be fined later. Violators $100 that an indi- not conclude “The shall landlords per day. violation Renters and illegal alien unless and until an is an vidual judi- deficiency notices seek receiving has representative authorized cial review. pur- government, with the federal verified rejected Plaintiffs’ The district court States Code Title Sec- suant to United li- challenge to the preemption 1373(c), immigration individual’s tion such finding no conflict censing requirement, status.” immigration pro- law and between restriction, the Ordi- implement To prospec- requiring of the Ordinance visions renters provides prospective nance immigration to disclose infor- tive renters occupan- must obtain an age over the of 18 verify requiring police mation to. City, and must obtain a cy license from the with authorities. that information federal rental they license if move to different new However, the court concluded: Temporary guests need not properties. ... that the Ordinance To the extent license, an To a obtain a license. obtain of penalties harboring for the provides pay a five-dollar fee and applicant must have entered or remained persons who information, in- identifying basic disclose law, in in the United States violation and, alien,2 immi- if an cluding citizenship for the revocation of occu- provides or The “shall immediate- gration status. for the penalties licenses and pancy receipt occupancy upon license” ly issue dwelling units follow- lease or rental point, [of] At complete application. a licenses, revocation of occupy ing a rented the renter lease pejoratively. the term See "any person not we do not use 2. INA defines "alien” as Keller, 8 F.Supp.2d a national of the United States.” at 970 n. 6. citizen or court, 1101(a)(3). § the district Like U.S.C. INA, it conflicts presenting an alien’s willful violation of alien reg- federal obstacle to the accomplishment and exe- 5(C) istration laws. Section imposed crim- purposes objectives cution of the full penalties inal on unauthorized aliens who Congress. seek work or work Arizona. Section 6 Keller, authorized state F.Supp.2d (quota- at 972-73 officers to per- arrest a omitted). son, warrant, tions The court also without a if concluded the officer has preempted that these provisions, probable on their cause to person believe the “has face, violate the FHA they would any public committed offense that makes disparate have an unlawful impact on Lati- [him] removable from the United States.” residents. Finally, no Id. at 976-79. ap- omitted). Id. at (quotations Section law, plying Nebraska the court concluded 2(B) required that state officers make a provisions that unlawful are severable “reasonable attempt ... to determine the from the remainder of the Ordinance and immigration status any person permanently enjoined enforcement, their detain, stop, arrest another legiti- but not the non-preempted provi- mate basis if suspicion reasonable exists sions.3 person that the is an alien and is unlawful- appeal, Plaintiffs contending the court present ly in the United States.” Id. at invalidating erred all of the Ordi- omitted). (quotations The Court held nance’s rental federally the first provisions, three but not or, alternatively, proper- as not fourth, preempted by the immigra- ly severable from the unlawful provisions. tion laws. The Martinez Plaintiffs appeal the court’s Kennedy’s Justice majority opin rulings state law and its conclusion that began ion by reaffirming powerful two they did not plead disparate impact claims that principles govern First, these issues. under the FHA. The appeals, cross government broad, the federal “has un arguing the court in concluding erred power subject doubted over the of immi any provision of the federally Ordinance is aliens,” and the gration status of authority preempted or violates the FHA.

that rests on the power constitutional Preemption II. “establish an uniform Rule of Naturaliza tion,” I, Art. cl. and on the national Four months after the district court’s government’s power “inherent as sover decision, issued its Court de- eign - to control and conduct relations with States, cision Arizona v. United Arizona, foreign nations.” 132 S.Ct. at U.S.-, 183 L.Ed.2d 351 Second, by reason of the (2012), Suprema which significantly affects the is- Clause, VI, cy 2,4 Art. cl. Congress has sues before us on appeal. The Court in virtually unfettered power preempt Arizona challenge considered facial (i) “by four sections of an laws enacting Arizona law state commonly statute con taining referred as S.B. an express 1070. Section 3 im- preemption provision,” posed (ii) state criminal for an sanctions determining “conduct rejected Constitution, 3. The equal district court Plaintiffs’ 4. “This and the Laws of the claims, thereof; protection process and due United States ... made in the Keller Pursuance and all made Authority Treaties ... under the Plaintiffs' § claims under 1981 and the Com- States, of Clause, supreme the United be shall the merce and the Martinez Plaintiffs’ dis- Land; Law Judges every the and in criminatory treatment claims under the FHA. thereby, any Thing State shall be bound in the challenge do rulings Plaintiffs these Constitution or Laws State to the of Con- appeal. trary notwithstanding.’’ 940 inappropri- “it would be not inevitable and by exclusive regulated its be

field ... must 2(B) in a § will be construed in- assume that be ate to preemption governance,” a conflict federal of a federal that creates way pervasiveness from the ferred law,” from the dominance regime or id. 2510. regulatory Id. being regulated. interest of the federal that the Ordinance’s argue Plaintiffs addition, state laws are In at 2500-2501. federally preempted are provisions with federal they conflict when pre- all of the above-summarized under when occurs preemption law. Conflict view, only the In our emption doctrines. and state federal compliance with both summary judgment serious issue on this a state law and when impossible, is laws preemption, conflict whether record is accomplish- as an obstacle “stands as an obstacle provisions these “stand purposes of the full and execution ment execution of the accomplishment and Id. at 2501 Congress.” of objectives Congress” of objectives purposes full omitted).5 (quotations procedures exclusively federal providing at is- Arizona Turning to the unlawfully present removing aliens § as an sue, first invalidated the Court INA, as the district country this in the exclusively on the intrusion impermissible ar- concluded and the United States court registration, relying of alien federal field address- Amicus Curiae. Before gues as in Hines v. prior decision heavily on its issue, why Plain- explain that we will ing 52, 59-60, 74, Davidowitz, 312 U.S. preemption arguments tiffs’ broader (1941), 399, that struck 85 L.Ed. 581 S.Ct. unsound. registration Pennsylvania parallel down a A Federal Power To Admit Exclusive Arizona, at 2501-03. Sec- 132 S.Ct. law. Bica, In De Canas v. and Remove Aliens. 5(C) § ond, concluded the Court 356, 933, 47 L.Ed.2d U.S. the careful balance interfere with “would (1976), Supreme Court addressed in the when chose by Congress” struck the extent to which Constitution impose criminal statute “not to federal laws, in and local which preempts state seek, in, engage aliens who penalties on powerless be “Congress case itself would Id. at 2504- employment.” unauthorized approve” such laws. to authorize Third, invalidated the Court 05. in De Canas was whether Califor- issue emphasizing provision, arrest warrantless employers fines on who imposing nia law in the discretion importance unlawfully present knowingly employed “significant process alien removal attempt an aliens was unconstitutional determining whether complexities” immigration. As the regulate the State to Finally, removable. Id. 2506. alien is framed the issue: Court the facial declined to sustain the Court un- regulate immigration is Power 2(B) §in challenge requirement to the exclusively power. a federal questionably at- that state officers make reasonable every But the Court has never held immigration status tempt to determine the any way deals state enactment which they or arrest if any person detain regulation immigra- is a with aliens suspicion person that “the have reasonable by this per pre-empted tion and thus se unlawfully in the present an alien and is latent or power, whether States,” constitutional concluding that id. at United that aliens are exercised.... fact purpose [T]he was prolonged detention for Hillsborough Cnty. v. Auto Supremacy laws.” purposes of the statewide "[F]or Inc., 707, 713, Labs., Clause, constitutionality local ordi- mated Med. 2371, (1985). L.Ed.2d 714 analyzed way that of S.Ct. 85 in the same as nances is

941 posed obtaining does not other subject housing of a state statute regulation immigration, it a City, render renting City, outside the or relocat- essentially a determination of which is ing parts country. to other of the or should not be admitted who should deter, designed Laws or even un- country,

into the and the conditions prohibit, unlawfully present aliens from re may remain. legal der which a entrant siding particular locality within are not (citations 354-55, 424 at 96 S.Ct. 933 U.S. immigration tantamount to laws establish omitted). acknowledging that While ing may who enter or remain in the coun may have “indirect California law some Indeed, try. expansive Plaintiffs’ notion of immigration,” the Court held impact on preemption constitutional and field con is constitutionally preempted. that it was not trary to decisions of the Court 355-56, Id. at 96 S.Ct. 933. expressly recognizing may that a State Canas, De Relying on Plaintiffs enact an otherwise valid law7 that deters provisions are constitu argue the rental unlawfully present residing aliens from tionally preempted they have the State, within the notwithstanding the fed regulating effect of immi impermissible government’s eral power exclusive in con by expelling City from the aliens gration trolling the nation’s borders. As the lawfully present are not in the who Unit explained Plyler Court v. Doe: Alternatively, con ed States.6 Plaintiffs tend, provisions the rental intrude on a Although the State has no direct inter- “field,” removal, federally alien occupied controlling entry est in country, into this exclusively governed by complex is which being interest one reserved prescribed by procedures removal Con Government, Constitution to the Federal gress the INA. See 8 U.S.C. 1229a. migration might unchecked unlawful im- arguments premised These related pair economy generally, the State’s provisions the notion that the rental im- ability provide the State’s im- some permissibly “remove” a class of aliens portant Despite service. exclusive false; City. premise from the But the is borders, federal control of this Nation’s these neither determine “who we cannot conclude that the States are should or should not be admitted into the influx any power without to deter the country,” margin nor do than more persons entering the United States ally affect “the conditions under which a law, against and whose numbers Canas, legal entrant remain.” De might impact have a discernible on tra- 355, Indeed, 96 U.S. S.Ct. 933. ditional state concerns. factually unsupport Plaintiffs’ is assertion 23, 2382, 457 U.S. 228 n. 102 S.Ct. ed, as there is no record evidence that (1982); Canas, 424 L.Ed.2d 786 see De aliens denied licenses 355-56, likely country, will leave the op- U.S. S.Ct. 933. course, argument legislation subject 6. Plaintiffs' constitutional such is to oth histori- Of challenges, er constitutional such as whether cally light predominance unsound. “In "there is no rational basis for the difference immigration of federal restrictions in modem similarly persons, in treatment” of situated times, easy sight it is to lose of the States' Vill. issue that is not before us. Willow regulating immigration— traditional role in Olech, 562, 564, 528 U.S. brook sovereign prerogative and to their overlook (2000) curiam); (per 145 L.Ed.2d 1060 Arizona, (Scalia, J., do so." 132 S.Ct. at 2514 Ctr., Living Cleburne see Inc., Clebume v. dissenting). 432, 446, S.Ct. (1985). L.Ed.2d 313 942 challenges, and non-preemption “regulation of survive broad definition

Plaintiffs’ inconsistent with any is also of such trend on federal immigration” impact of the Whiting, in 131 S.Ct. decision the Court’s clear— policies. thing One immigration 1987, Arizona law that upholding at an end to such Congress put could E-Verify and revoked mandated the use of not, by exercising widespread or practice, knowingly who employers of the licenses powers. See Ari- express preemption its lacking work authoriza- aliens employed zona, at 2500-01. It would be 132 S.Ct. no hint that the gave tion. The Court pow- I Congress’s Article inconsistent impermissible Arizona law constituted judiciary if assumed for itself this ers because it immigration of regulation state preemption power. broad certain driving of may have the effect Instead, classes of aliens from State. Preemption Asser B. Other Field carefully analyzed whether the Court argue the Ordinance’s tions. Plaintiffs expressly preempt- either Arizona law was are, preempted by provisions also IRCA, preempted by impliedly ed or was wholly two legislation occupies that federal law. Id. it conflicted with federal because “anti- fields, registration and other alien have been analysis at This would 1977-84. issues, In harboring.” considering these “a unnecessary if the Arizona law was we must bear mind Court’s of constitutionally proscribed regulation “Every Act of Con caution in De Canas: Congress itself would be immigration field, occupies some but we must gress approve.” De powerless to authorize or that field before know the boundaries of Canas, 356, 96 S.Ct. 933. U.S. say precluded can that it has a state we reject Plaintiffs’ broad contentions We any power from exercise of reserved to contrary controlling Supreme Court at 360 n. byit the Constitution.” U.S. pow- and as an intrusion on the precedents omitted). 8, (quotations 96 S.Ct. Congress appropriate to define limits er of local laws that affect the on state and Registration. In Alien es- legislative power “[t]o exclusive federal Hines, 70, 74, 399, .61 S.Ct. tablish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” “complete held Supreme Court I, issue, disagree § cl. 4. 'we Art. On this enacted system registration” for alien pair panel with a of now-vacated decisions Pennsylva Congress preempted circuits, our sister Lozano parallel registration regime nia’s (3d Hazleton, 620 F.3d 220-21 Cir. inte Congress single intended to create “a 2010), light vacated and remanded in all-embracing system” for alien grated and (2011), Whiting, 131 S.Ct. 2958 and Villas Arizona, relying In registration. Partners v. Farmers at Parkside Hines, invalidated 3 of the Court (5th Branch, Cir.), vacat- 675 F.3d law, imposed Arizona which state criminal (5th banc, reh’g en 688 F.3d 801 ed for for an alien’s violation of sanctions willful Cir.2012). The rental do not laws, because, registration alien (or country even remove aliens from this field, an entire Congress occupies “[w]here City), they nor do create a parallel registration, as it has the field of alien determine an alien’s re- process local regulation is im complementary even state reg- movability. Accordingly, do not at 2502. Plaintiffs permissible.” immigration generally ulate or conduct occupancy licensing argue the Ordinance’s un- of alien removal. the “field” We completely likewise a field- scheme is state willing speculate whether other regime. registration alien We governments adopt and local would similar measures, disagree. whether those measures would ... in occupancy regulate license scheme issue is a manner consistent registration the state laws nothing Canas, like with pertinent federal De laws.” in in Hines and Arizona. The invalidated (quotations U.S. S.Ct. 933 renters, requires including all omitted). Ordinance find in nothing We an anti-har- nationals, citizens and to obtain U.S. boring prohibition in contained one sub- renting license before a dwell- part of § one subsection of 8 U.S.C. all ing City. apply unit in the It does not that a regula- establishes “framework of Although excludes non-renters. aliens—it pervasive tion so ... Congress that left no prospective renters must disclose some of it,” room for the supplement States to information that must dis- the same aliens evinces “a federal ... interest so dominant complying regis- close in with federal alien that system the federal will be assumed to laws, tration that not turn a local does preclude enforcement of state laws on the property licensing program into a Arizona, subject.” same 132 S.Ct. at 2501 registration regime. alien To preempted omitted). (quotations any that a hold otherwise would mean time Plaintiffs also contend that the rental collects basic information from its State provisions conflict with the anti- federal residents, including aliens—such before harboring prohibition in 8 U.S.C. issuing impermissibly driver’s licenses—it 1324(a)(l)(A)(iii),by § a establishing prohi- registration into the field of alien intrudes “harboring” bition defines more ex- preempted. and must be It defies Com- pansively imposes penalties not im- Congress mon sense to think that intended posed the federal statute. Congress such a result. has not use of the word “har- Anti-Harboring. The federal boring.” That the Ordinance labels con- immigration impose penalties criminal laws prohibits says duct it “harboring” nothing any or in person “knowing who reckless prohibition about whether conflicts of the fact that an alien disregard has with a federal criminal statute that uses to, entered, come or remains in the United 5(C) § the same word. Ari- Unlike law, conceals, in har States violation of zona statute the Court invalidated Ari- bors, or shields from detection ... such zona, purport the Ordinance does not any place, including any building alien anti-harboring prohibi- enforce the federal transportation.” means 8 U.S.C. Rather, prohibits “harboring” con- tion. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii). § Plaintiffs contend City’s duct that is inconsistent with the that, because the Ordinance makes it un interests, public being local careful not to illegal lawful for landlord “to harbor an prohibit “expressly permitted by conduct dwelling alien” in a unit har “unless such showing federal law.” Plaintiffs made no boring expressly permitted by is otherwise Congress preempt intended to States law,” impermissibly Ordinance governments imposing and local from dif- upon preempted anti-harboring intrudes ferent penalties for the violation of differ- Again, disagree. “field.” we prohibitions ent or local be- simply state preemption The doctrine of field prohibited cause conduct is labeled nearly “Only not expansive. so demon “harboring.” complete pow stration that ouster of state Preemption. This er—including promulgate C. power state Conflict brings preemption us to the crux of the laws not conflict with federal laws—was issue, the contention of Plaintiffs and the purpose the clear and manifest Con the rental provisions that United States that gress justify would conclusion” th[e] Congress authority principal “a feature of the “intended to oust state interfere with proceedings. removal pursue when to system,” the broad dis removal

[federal] invalidated officials 6 of the state law by immigration Unlike cretion exercised Arizona, do not re- who are the rental which aliens to determine in the United States should legally present officials to determine whether quire local . Arizona, country from the removed the be an alien is removable from United 2499. The district court “sig- that involves determination States —a contention, this con part in agreed 132 S.Ct. at 2506. complexities.” nificant cluding: Indeed, re- provisions expressly the rental identified to feder- an individual is

Once to the federal quire City officials to defer this present as an alien in al authorities of whether an government’s determination regula- and federal country, the INA unlawfully present.8 The alien renter is for the provide ... the structure tions deference to federal determi- Ordinance’s removal. individual’s classification and/or “mirrors the immigration nations of status take political If subdivisions states Whiting.” in statutory language approved to remove aliens independent action Branch, (Elrod, Farmers 675 F.3d jurisdiction, essentially forc- from their J., dissenting part); Whiting, in see community ing them from one state opinion in this (plurality S.Ct. at 1981 identity and another where their Part). obscured, the may be whereabouts argues provi- that a The United States Congress has established for structure that enacted Fremont sion “such as of aliens will potential the ... removal orderly operation of would undermine the impaired. be by depriving proceedings federal removal the at 973. As Ordinance’s F.Supp.2d of shelter while federal officials de- aliens only indirectly would ef provisions rental pro- termine whether to institute removal any alien from the fect the “removal” of ceedings, proceedings and while such take It reasoning far too broad. City, this and that “Fremont’s Ordinance place,” the law apply equally would California assumption on the unsound the rests the Arizona law upheld in'.De Canas and will Department Police and state courts be Whiting, denying aliens upheld lawfully can able to determine who remain inevitably has the effect employment country of and without advance “removing” some of them from State. in a re- regard to determination federal Raich, 33, 42, 36 See Truax v. Plaintiffs, proceeding.” moval Like (“In (1915) ordinary S.Ct. 60 L.Ed. 131 argument on United States constructs its they can cannot live where [aliens] cases premise the false that the Ordinance cre- work.”). preemption analysis Conflict -competing regime ates a to determine greater specificity. far requires from the which aliens will be removed preemption argument conflict Plaintiffs’ man, it country. Having woven this straw infirmity. the same As the suffers from him easy is of course to blow down. do not “remove” provisions rental (or parties spec- and the United States States even from alien from United inconclusively about extent re- ulate City), immigration officials im- applied would complete tain discretion to decide whether which Ordinance as 1.4(C) occupant provides immigration is received of the Ordinance status of the 8. Section that, Depart government. The submitting from the federal after an alien's attempt indepen govern1 shall not to make to the féderal ment license information ment, any occupant’s Department determination of immi shall take no dent [Police] “the gration status.” action until final ascertainment of further reg- timing the federal The nature and interfere with this case coun- permissibly argue evaluating alien removal. Plaintiffs sel caution the validity ulation of 2(B).... § expel from the uncertainty would There is basic City unlawfully present aliens who have about what the law means and how it lawful sta- will At pending applications stage, to obtain be enforced. without tus, asylum, seeking as those who the benefit of a definitive interpretation such courts, for from the eligible inap- even be work state would be authoriza- 2(B) City responds propriate tion. The that aliens who to assume will be con- asylum pending applications way have strued in a creates conflict other forms of relief will not have their federal law. they licenses revoked because Id. at 2510. presents This case an analo- by

will be deemed federal authorities tó be gous situation. provi- Before the rental “lawfully present.” gov- Plaintiffs and the sions have been implement- construed and that, an im- reply ernment alien’s by officials, ed state and local and before fluid, migration gov- status is the federal we know how federal authorities will re- City ernment will not to tell the be able spond City’s inquiries to the under “unlawfully present.” whether an alien is § speculate we -decline to 1373(c), whether that, City pursuant The to 8 contends the rental provisions might, as applied, 1373(c),9 § U.S.C. federal authorities will an accomplish- “stand[ ] as obstacle to the the an be able to tell whether alien is ment and execution of the full purposes lawfully present. The record does not objectives Congress” as reflected clarify government respond how the would complex the provisions. removal of federal 1373(c), by § requests to the under immigration law. Id. at 2501 (quotations argument and counsel at oral could not omitted). “In determining whether a law requests specific guidance. answer our for invalid, facially is be careful [courts] must that, It if gov- seems obvious the federal go beyond not to facial statute’s re- definitively ernment will be unable to re- quirements speculate ‘hypotheti- about that an port “unlawfully present,” alien is ‘imaginary’ cal’ or cases.” Wash. State then provisions simply the rental are inef- Grange Rep. Party, v. Wash. State 552 fectual. Plaintiffs and the United States 442, 449-50, 1184, U.S. 170 explain do not awhy local law is conflict- (2008). L.Ed.2d 151 government when the federal reasons, For we conclude that these complete has power to avoid the conflict. any Plaintiffs have failed to that establish provisions of the Ordinance’s rental These fact-intensive issues illus facially preempted by federal law. In so why trate facial challenges are disfavored holding, obviously express opinion we no and, accordingly, why Plaintiffs’ facial chal as to the provisions wisdom these Arizona, lenge must fail. In federal, state, public matter of or local 2(B) § Court dismissed a facial attack on policy. law, rejecting of the state argument 2(B) inevitably

that require would state Housing III. Fair Act prolong officers to detention for the sole purpose verifying immigra rejected a detainee’s The district court Plaintiffs’ tion disparate status: FHA treatment claims because 1373(c) requires govern- gration 9. Section the federal status of individual within the “respond by jurisdiction agency inquiry any purpose ment a ... law, government agency, seeking by providing requested State[] or local authorized verify citizenship or ascertain the or immi- verification or status information.” 946 (8th 1225, Co., F.3d 1229 132 requisite intent Chemical prove the

they failed to Inc., Dillard’s, Cir.1997); Gregory v. party No Latinos. against discriminate cf. Cir.) (en banc) (“A (8th that The court held F.3d ruling. appeals that required failed to assert ‘to divine Plaintiffs court ... Martinez district claim; they appeal impact that FHA intent and create claims disparate litigant’s denied, the Keller ”), held that The court ruling. clearly raised.’ cert. are not a FHA standing to assert Plaintiffs have 175 L.Ed.2d U.S. S.Ct. upheld that claim and impact disparate (2009). the court to the rental

claim as the six The Keller Of B. Plaintiffs. federally preempted. concluded are also Plaintiffs, three remain: Keller original rulings. those City appeals both Keller, proper- a landlord with rental Fred Doe, City; Af Juan an alien with ties A. The Martinez Plaintiffs. judg entered final whose wife is Temporary the district court Protected Status ter ment, Plaintiffs filed a motion the Martinez and who an alien without lawful status judgment to reflect to amend the City; month-to-month rents impact theory. disparate a prevailed too on #2, Doe an alien without lawful Juana 60(a) Rules of Civil of the Federal Rule now lives in a mobile home she status who a a court “to correct allows Procedure court, City the In the district purchased. arising from or a mistake clerical mistake has stand- plaintiff that no Keller argued The district court oversight or omission.” impact FHA ing disparate to assert an motion, “that the concluding denied the the district court lacked claim and thus plead dispa not plaintiffs [a did Martinez jurisdiction grant to relief on those claims. not prevailing claim and are impact] rate Keller, responded plaintiff plaintiffs toAs claim.” The Martinez on that parties standing Supremacy assert that he has to we re ruling, that which appeal Plaintiffs challenges Clause Clause and Commerce Alpern v. for abuse of discretion. See view harboring occupancy licensing and to the Inc., 1525, United, 84 F.3d 1589 UtiliCorp court ruled more provisions. The district Cir.1996). (8th The Martinez Plaintiffs’ an broadly: “the Court has undertaken alleged: Complaint simply Amended Third ... analysis and is satisfied independent violates the Immigration “The Ordinance standing Plaintiff has to assert that each Act, Housing seq., 42 3601 et Fair U.S.C. by that Plaintiff.” presented the claims it discriminates on the basis at 966-67 n. 2. The court F.Supp.2d origin.” race national Unlike and/or stated, with the Keller then consistent Plaintiffs,10 they allege did not a Keller Complaint: First Amended Plaintiffs’ claim, they allege did disparate impact nor case”—who obvi- in the Keller “Plaintiffs disparate a im support sufficient facts “that ously include landlord Keller —assert theory. After careful review of pact disparate negative the Ordinance has issue, we con pertaining to this record residents.” Id. at 978 impact on Latino its court did not abuse clude the district (emphasis original). Martinez Plain denying discretion argue length appeal, parties On “oversight or tiffs’ motion to correct their Doe #2 Doe and Juana whether Juan plead a distinct Fair failing omission” FHA standing III to assert v. Dow have Article Housing Act claim. See Kocher impact negative disproportionate Com- that has The Keller Plaintiffs’ First Amended enacting alleges “[b]y the Ordi- the federal Fair plaint Latinos in violation of nance, imposed have terms and Defendants Housing Act.” housing the rental of in the conditions on disparate impact claims. But as to versy land- is both immediate and real.” Lake Keller, City, conceding lord after he MacMullan, Carriers’ Ass’n v. standing preemp- “has raise most of the 498, 508, 1749, 92 S.Ct. 32 L.Ed.2d 257 asserted,”

tion simply claims asserts with- (1972). Therefore, “[plaintiffs have stand- analysis authority out or citation -that ing to challenge the validity facial of a Keller, “a United States citizen landlord— regulation notwithstanding pre-en- obviously standing lacks to bring” dispa- forcement lawsuit, nature of a where the impact rate claim. agree. We cannot impact of the regulation is direct and im- mediate actual, an allege satisfy

To III well- standing Article founded requirements fear that the thereby show will law be enforced controversy exists, against actual case or “the them.” par Gray Valley ty must Park, show has some (8th suffered actual Cir.2009). 567 F.3d injury or threatened that can be traced to Here, Ordinance’s allegedly illegal conduct and that and harboring provisions directly tar capable being redressed.” Nat'l Fed’n of geted landlords. Keller testified that he Cross, Blind Mo. v. 184 F.3d aliens, has rented to does not inquire (8th Cir.1999). injury must be whether his lawfully tenants are in this “concrete particularized” and “actual country, but has been told that one or two imminent, conjectural hypotheti unlawfully present. were If provi these cal.” Lujan v. Wildlife, 504 Defenders of went sions into effect and Keller continued 555, 560, U.S. 119 L.Ed.2d City landlord,11 to be a he subject would be (1992) omitted). (quotations Because to the harboring proscription, could not Congress intended standing under the re dwelling rent units obtaining without cop provisions medial of the Fair Housing Act ies of occupancy from licenses each occu III, “to extend to full limits” of Article pant, and would be compelled imple to authority additional, courts lack to create ment revocation notices received from the prudential standing. barriers to Havens Fremont Police Coleman, Department. Realty Corp. 363, v. Violations 455 U.S. 372, (1982) 1114, subject 102 S.Ct. Keller to criminal prosecu 71 L.Ed.2d 214 would omitted). Thus, tion, (quotations long so and the likely as restrictions would Keller has Article standing, may III he him cause to lose some tenants and re rights assert the parties of third in seeking pool tenants, of prospective strict caus injury to redress the to rights his own and ing economic injury. agree therefore We interests. the district court Keller will suf fer sufficient concrete and imminent future “A party facing prospective in injury give to him III standing Article to jury has standing to sue where the threat a pre-enforcement assert facial challenge real, injury immediate, ened is and direct.” to these under the FHA as well Comm’n, Davis v. Fed. Election the Supremacy Clause. Accord Loza 724, 2759, 2769, 128 S.Ct. 171 L.Ed.2d 737 no, (2008). 620 F.3d at govern 188-90. “When When a state or local imposes law by ment action ... compliance challenged party a regulates burdens on those it controls, target object is a of “compliance is coerced who that action ... the threat of ... enforcement ordinarily question contra there is little that the 11. Keller deposition testified at his that he tion does not affect whether he has constitu properties would sell his if the Ordinance standing validity tional challenge to were found to be valid. That he cease against law before it is enforced him. being a litiga landlord if he were to lose the

948 — dismissed, (2011), cert. L.Ed.2d 395 injury, him and that has caused ... action 1306, -, ... the action will L.Ed.2d 181 judgment preventing a U.S. Concerned it.” Citizens (2012); redress Minn. Holly Citizens Mt. Gardens Comm’n, F.3d Fed. Election v. Action, Mount Hol Toumship Inc. v. Life omitted). Cir.1997) (8th (quotation cert, (3d Cir.2011), grant ly, 658 F.3d 375 — — -, ed, 133 S.Ct U.S. Plaintiffs has of the Keller As one (June 17, L.Ed.2d -, 2013 WL an FHA standing to assert Article III 2013). claim, jurisdic have we impact disparate and need the merits

tion to consider whether question the difficult circuit, consider prove In to a dis this # 2 would also Doe Doe and Juana Juan FHA, a violation of the parate impact facial chall assert standing have a prima must first establish facie plaintiff enge.12 case, is, objected-to “that the action argues the in,

C. The Merits. in, result predicted results or can be concluding that the district court erred upon protected a class disparate impact a provisions violate Ordinance’s a population as compared to a relevant disparate of their unlawful FHA because Hous. Auth. v. U.S. whole.” Charleston circuits, Like most we impact on Latinos. (8th 729, 740-41 Agric., 419 F.3d Dept. of disparate impact long recognized have Cir.2005). identify a The Keller Plaintiffs the FHA in which cause of action under class, they fail Latinos. But protected more than that prove need no plaintiff “the disparate impact, simply identify specific actually or the defendant the conduct of enforcing “that referring to the likelihood discriminatory ef ... has predictably in a reduction the Ordinance would result Jack, City Black fect.” United States in Fremont.” Hispanic population (8th Cir.1974). But 508 F.2d identify attempt make no And expressly declined to Court compared, oth population” “relevant to be Huntington in Town rule on this issue showing that a citing er than statistics Branch, NAACP, 488 U.S. Huntington v. City’s foreign-born of the large number 18, 276, 15, 102 L.Ed.2d 180 109 S.Ct. Latin came from American population (1988) curiam), today and there is (per comparison Is the relevant countries. would doubt whether the Court reason to all aliens not lawful impact Ordinance’s on cause of ac approve any disparate impact renters, aliens, on all on all ly present, Gallagher the FHA. See tion under City’s population? entire The Kel on the (8th Cir.), reh’g en 619 823 Magner, F.3d us, con- Plaintiffs do not tell and their ler (8th denied, 380, 636 F.3d 383-84 banc provides no clusory analysis of the issue Cir.2010) (Colloton, J., dissenting), cert. — 548, U.S.-, 181 answer. 132 S.Ct. granted, indefinitely. planned in that home lived in their to live

12. Juan Doe and his wife have Thus, provisions may years. Ordinance's rental rented residence for four His current looking requisite "high degree of "currently to lack the immedia- that he is declaration 2, house,” cy.” Lujan, at n. 112 S.Ct. contrary prior deposition 564 to his rent requisite personal interest that testimony, speculative confer 2130. “The may be too Tires, litiga- commencement of the standing. Inc. must exist at the Article III See Camfield 1361, throughout its (standing) continue Corp., 1365- tion must Tire 719 F.2d v. Michelin Earth, (mootness)." Cir.1983). (8th Friends # existence 66 Juana Doe 2’s claims 167, Servs., 528 U.S. v. Laidlaw Environ. injunctive because she has Inc. relief are moot 693, (2000) L.Ed.2d 610 pur apartment into a moved from a rented omitted). (quotations and testified that she mobile home chased view, great impor- ry In the issue is of Gallagher, our effects.” 619 F.3d at 834 passed pursuant FHA “was omitted). tance. The (quotations The Keller Plaintiffs power the Thirteenth congressional under argue has failed to prove that the badges to eliminate the Amendment rental provisions necessary to accom- Jack, slavery.” incidents of Black 508 plish policy objectives “decreasing It obviously F.2d consistent the fiscal supposedly imposed burdens purpose with this condemn an ordinance immigrants, undocumented as well [as] practice that is neutral on its face but by illegal crimes committed aliens.” But perpetuating has the effect of or reestab- preemption clear, as our decision makes lishing racially segregated communities or cities and municipalities may have both neighborhoods. But a state law or local legitimate local interest restricting the disadvantages ordinance that restricts or of unlawfully present number resid- aliens lawfully present country aliens not in the ing within their borders and a rational purposes has no such historic ties to the enforcing basis for a particular restriction. the FHA. find no hint in the We FHA’s particular If a means of achieving this history purpose such law or legitimate policy objective pre- survives ordinance, which is valid in all other re- emption and other attacks on its constitu- the FHA if spects, violates local statistics tionality, the Keller Plaintiffs cannot iden- gathered can be dispropor- show that a tify “a viable alternative means” that adversely tionate of the number affected would not have the same “discriminatory” aliens are of a particular members ethnic effect disparate impact portion group. today, In most cases that would of unlawfully present aliens who are Lati- Latinos, course be but various times in no. locales, history, our and in various “disparate impact” might have been on reasons, For these the Keller Plaintiffs’ Ireland,

immigrants from Germany, Scan- FHA disparate claims of unlawful impact dinavia, China, Italy, parts or other of the must be dismissed. illogical world. It would be to impose disparate

FHA impact liability based on IV. State Law Claims the effect an otherwise lawful ordinance Early in the litigation, conferring after may have on a sub-group unprotect- parties, with the the district court certified ed class of lawfully present aliens not following question to the Supreme country. Espinoza Mfg. v. Farah Cf. Court of Nebraska: Co., U.S. S.Ct. 38 L.Ed.2d class, May city a Nebraska of the first (1973). statutory Whatever its merit that a city is not “home rule” under contexts, in other the of urged cause action XI Article of the Nebraska Constitution by the Keller Plaintiffs is unsound. passed charter, and has not a home rule This conclusion is reinforced when we promulgate placing an ordinance condi- consider the other two a dispa- elements of persons’ eligibility tions on occupy to rate impact claim under the FHA: wheth- dwellings, ability landlords’ to rent City policy er the can show that “its or dwellings, authority or owners’ business practice relationship had manifest to a le- workers, employ to hire and consistent gitimate, non-discriminatory objec- policy 16, 18, Chapters and 19 the necessary tive and was to the attainment Revised of Nebraska? Statutes objective,” of that and if plain- so whether Keller, F.Supp.2d at 979. The Ne- tiffs can show that “a viable alternative certification, Supreme means was available braska Court denied legiti- to achieve the objective that, mate policy noting without discriminato- in exercising police power del- Fremont has no home because State, legisla- tion here municipal “the by the egated limits, above-quoted sole state- is the charter. As the ture, constitutional rule within enacted laws should be Supreme to what Court of Nebraska judge by as ment the the and that people,” clear, City for the welfare has been makes the in Keller “identify did not question certified to enact or- police power broad delegated provi- constitutional or state state statutes general the “not inconsistent with dinances violated in the allegedly sions that were § 16- Neb.Rev.Stat. laws of the state.” Keller v. complaints.” plaintiffs’ Martinez Plain- surprisingly, the 246. Not Fremont, 790 N.W.2d 280 Neb. in which an no case tiffs cite Nebraska omitted). (2010) In its (quotations 712-13 rule city without a home ordinance ruling, the summary judgment subsequent solely the invalidated charter was Plaintiffs’ claim rejected district court “a matter regulate not ground that did a matter of is void as “that the Ordinance purely local concern.” law,” that the Nebraska concluding state argue Plaintiffs next what The Martinez very stat- delegated broad Legislature has alleged complaint in their was not of the first utory powers to cities police the presented to therefore Fremont, regard without such as class ques- in certified of Nebraska Court a home rule they adopted have whether con- Nebraska statutes specific tion—that XI of the Nebraska under Article charter with, or preempt, therefore one flict Keller, F.Supp.2d Constitution. First, (“A provisions of the Ordinance. more 12; § 16-246 see Neb.Rev.Stat. & n. requirement they all contend may class make such city of the first rules, 1.5(E) ordinances, “[e]very bylaws, regulations, § of the Ordinance gen- not inconsistent with resolutions with- entity performing ... work business necessary be eral laws of state E-Verify in the register in the shall maintaining ... expedient general Program” is “inconsistent with and welfare of good government, peace, the Nebraska of the state” because laws city.”) impose Legislature 2009 declined statewide, opting instead to requirement Martinez Plaintiffs appeal, On beyond only public is entities and contractors argue require that the Ordinance first it “does City’s police power E-Verify. Neb.Rev.Stat. enroll in See purely a matter of local con 4-114(2). not involve Second, that re- § contend is without merit. cern.” This contention renters to disclose quiring prospective law, there a con when Under Nebraska “country citizenship” obtain their provision flict a state law and between an unlawful license constitutes charter, provision “a of a city’s home rule inquiry or record concern- “written or oral precedence over a rule charter takes home person ... of a origin the ... national ing of lo conflicting state statute instances rent, any housing” ... seeking to or lease concern, Legis when the municipal cal but Housing Fair of the Nebraska violation municipal af affecting lature enacts a law 20-318(5). Act. See Neb.Rev.Stat. concern, the of state-wide fairs which is ordinance is municipal “[A] over mu precedence law takes state actually it the extent that preempted to rule under the home nicipal action taken City law.” State ex rel. conflicts with state Terry, v. 211 Neb. Jacobberger charter.” Farms, Cnty. 266 Neb. Alma v. Furnas (1982) 903, 878, (quota 320 N.W.2d (2003). 558, 512, 522 “When 667 N.W.2d omitted); Axberg City tions see also claims, the court is reviewing preemption 613, Lincoln, 55, 2 141 Neb. N.W.2d harmonize, to the extent (1942). obligated to applica- have no But these cases done, ed, municipal can be state and and the case is legally remanded with di- subject. on the identical enactments rections to dismiss the Keller Plaintiffs’ susceptible of two When an ordinance is and the Martinez Plaintiffs’ complaints. constructions, under one of which it is valid,

clearly while under the its COLLOTON, other Judge, Circuit concurring doubtful, validity may be that construction in part concurring in judgment. the clearly which the ordinance valid .makes join I, II, III.A, I Parts IV (citations given.” be Id. 521-22 will opinion of the court. respect With to the omitted). Keller Plaintiffs Housing and the Fair Act Applying this standard to the rela (“FHA”), as addressed in Parts III.B and us, tively barren record before con we III.C of opinion, the lead I that conclude clude that the Martinez Plaintiffs failed to Fred Keller never asserted standing to prove their belated claims of actual con FHA, raise a claim under the and it is not Legislature flict. That the does not re place our to raise that claim for him sua E- quire employers all the State to use' sponte. Juan Doe and Juana Doe # 2 lack Verify imply does not that it intended to standing under Article III of the Constitu- prohibit municipality individual from claim, tion to an FHA pursue requirement enacting promote the requisite have not established the injury public welfare own In within its borders. I agree fact. therefore FHA deed, notes, the statute on claims of the Keller Plaintiffs should be rely implied which Plaintiffs to establish dismissed, and I concur in judgment specifically “encourag[es] conflict the use directing the complaints. dismissal of both immigration sys of the federal verification Although argued Fremont by private employers. tem” Neb.Rev.Stat. the district appeal court and on that the 4-114(3). Likewise, requiring prospec standing bring Keller Plaintiffs lacked “country tive renters to disclose their FHA, claim under the Fred Keller never citizenship” necessarily require does not standing claimed to have to do In so. origin disclosure of national in a manner response City’s summary to the motion for Housing that would violate the Fair state judgment, Keller, argued which Fred record, pre-enforcement Act. On this Doe, and standing Juan Juana Doe lacked input housing no from the relevant state any claims, to bring the Keller Plaintiffs officials and no evidence as to the specific (1) responded as follows: “Plaintiff Fred required, disclosure that will be a review Standing Keller has to Raise his Claims ing “obligation] pre court’s to harmonize” Supremacy Fair Under Clause and the ruling Housing cludes that the Act and the Ordinance’s licensing Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitu- (2) requirements tion;” are in actual conflict. Of “Plaintiff Standing Juan Doe has course, validity of the Ordinance under to Raise Supremacy his Claims under the question peculiarly state law is a within Clause, Clause, Equal Protection Sec- province of the state courts. Our deci Act;” Housing tion and the Fair challenge sion does not foreclose a future (3) Standing “Plaintiff # 2 Juana Doe has on a complete more record state court. Supremacy to Raise her Claims Under the Clause, Clause, Equal Protection Sec- reasons,

For these we reverse the dis- Housing tion and the Fair Act.” R. rulings trict that certain of the court’s 14, 17, Doc. 19. The plain import preempted by FHA, response of this that Juan Doe and law and violate the and we affirm in injunction all respects. raising other The is vacat- Juana Doe # were a claim under not meet that stan- Act, by and Juana do Fred Keller was Juan Housing the Fair dard. court concluded the district not. When has that “each Plaintiff briefing after this that he deposition testified at Juan Doe presented the claims standing to assert in their current and his wife had lived Fremont, Plaintiff,” Keller years, unit four (D.Neb. n. 2 966-67 F.Supp.2d long time.” to reside there “for a intended meant

2012), presumably court the district not apply The Ordinance does Supp. SA 8. standing to raise his Keller had the Ordinance only that to rentals effect before 1.2(A)(3). 5165, § As Clause and Ord. Supremacy was enacted. claims under Clause, and his wife remain at then- long in the as Juan presented the Commerce residence, subject they will not be current The court’s Keller Plaintiffs. brief of the injury. will suffer to the Ordinance and no in the Keller to the “Plaintiffs reference injury by sub- attempted to establish Juan Fair its discussion of the during case” affidavit that said mitting post-deposition a Act, naturally under is Housing id. house,” “currently looking to rent a he was plaintiffs mean those who asserted stood to party this court has held that a who but the FHA to raise a claim under standing length deposition on has been examined at #2), (i.e., Doe Doe and Juana Juan genuine “simply issue of fact cannot raise Fred Keller. contradicting his by submitting an affidavit event, argued In also Tires, testimony.” own earlier Camfield Plaintiffs that none of the Keller appeal Corp., 719 F.2d Inc. v. Michelin Tire raise a claim under the standing has to (8th Cir.1983). accepting Even court, FHA. in the district the Keller As affidavit, moreover, merely “looking Juan’s only that responded by arguing Plaintiffs an insufficient to demonstrate to rent” is # 2 have stand- Doe and Juana Doe Juan harm when the record shows imminent no that Fred ing. They argument advance not moved to a new resi- that Juan had pressing Keller is a claim under FHA filing affi- dence within six months of Fred standing or that he has to do so. davit. any claim un- Keller thus has abandoned fact, injury alleged Doe # no Juana that.might plead- been der the FHA have commenced, because after this case she such, complaint. amended As ed unit into a trailer moved from a rental Keller unnecessary to address whether then purchased, home that she she standing pre-enforce- to would have raise at the trailer plans testified that she live challenge that Ordinance No. 5165 ment “indefinitely.” general home Juana’s time violates the FHA while at the same prefer give that she “would statement subject be averring that he will never living her son a more comfortable situa- ante, at 947 & n. 11. the Ordinance. Cf. tion” is insufficient to establish that summarily court concluded district injury cause an imminent Ordinance will #2 have that Juan Doe and Juana Doe by preventing housing, a move to rental FHA, bring a claim under the standing to acknowledged that especially since Juana injury alleged has a sufficient but neither she was unable to rent a more desirable III satisfy requires Article III. Article the Or- apartment in Fremont even before “ “concrete, injury particularized, that is day’ ‘[S]ome dinance went into effect. imminent,” v. Am Clapper and actual or of con- any description intentions —without — International, U.S.-, any specifica- nesty plans, or indeed even crete USA 1138, 1147, day be—do not 185 L.Ed.2d 264 tion of when the some will an actual or immi- (2013), support finding of’ allegations injury made and the injury. Lujan v. nent Wild person. The Ordinance further explains Defenders of life, 564 & n. knowingly S.Ct. a renting dwelling to an (1992). 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 person undocumented constitutes harbor- ing. Any undocumented person who rents sum, In Juan Doe and # 2 Juana Doe dwelling a' in Fremont is deemed to have standing lack to raise a claim under the a breached condition of their lease.14 As Act, Housing Fair and Fred Keller has sponsors of noted, the Ordinance any abandoned claim might that he have designed Ordinance is prevent to undocu- under It pleaded the FHA. is thus unnec- persons mented from renting, and thus essary to reach disparate of a merits living, in Fremont. impact challenge to the Ordinance under Housing reasons, the Fair Act. For these I Sections 3 and 4 of the Ordinance create concur in part of opinion the court occupancy an system license to enforce the judgment. concur in the and harboring prohibition. Every prospective renter in Fremont must obtain an occu- BRIGHT, Judge, Circuit dissenting. pancy license before may the renter occu- Fremont, rented city py dwelling. The of This involves Nebraska enacted sub- mitting an application housing license, ordinance for the purpose with the and $5, to the removing aliens,” Fremont “illegal Police Department. undocumented application The request from the will persons,13 Fremont basic city. seeks informa- tion, name, birth, to such as usurp power to the federal date the ad- reserved dwelling, dress and government “country or identifying undocumented citizenship.” persons forcing Additionally, out of the city, applicants them will (1) required to perhaps country. be either they The federal declare that government (2) has the are United States authority national; exclusive citizen or which immigrants may provide determine an reside in identification number establish- country ing (3) and which immigrants presence; their lawful will be declare removed. may they Fremont not exercise this do not know of any such identification power, even within its own number establishing boundaries. presence. lawful their Neither Fremont nor city other in this This is an effective identify means system nation enact a regulation deter undocumented persons from living designed to remove presently Few, undocu- Fremont. if any, per- undocumented immigrants. 2, 3, mented Sections and 4 sons will fill sign out and an application (“the Ordinance”) of Ordinance 5156 requires which them disclose their un- conflict preempted stand as documented status.

an obstacle to objective. a federal I An person undocumented who declares strongly dissent. or her presence his unlawful would receive

In June voters Fremont license immediately upon adopted by public the Ordinance initiative. completing application and could then heart of prohibi- begin Ordinance is the occupancy of the rented dwelling. tion of harboring. The However, Ordinance declares process will not end here. it is any person unlawful for or busi- issuing After an occupancy license to an entity ness to harbor an undocumented person, undocumented the Fremont Police Although 13. the Ordinance uses the term "il- only prospective- The Ordinance will apply legal persons alien” to unlawfully describe ly persons and will not affect undocumented States, present in the United in this dissent I leases, existing they try until move to persons refer to such by the term "undocu- a new dwelling. unit or person.” mented court concluded that several infor- The district person’s will submit

Department the Ordinance are conflict parts “to as- government the federal mation to Fremont, occupant preempted. is an alien Keller whether the certain (D.Neb.2012). In States.” 972-73 lawfully F.Supp.2d in the United present conclusion, to the the court noted presence reaching of unlawful reporting This First, an additional deter- government important Congress facts. cre- federal two persons obtaining adju- INA, complex to undocumented scheme for rent ated the in Fremont. in the housing dicating immigrants’ right to remain The INA and other country. Id. at 972. reports to government the federal When regulations provide the structure federal person is that an undocumented Fremont the classification and removal of undoc- for De- unlawfully present,15 Police indeed Second, persons. umented Id. 973. deficiency person will issue the partment enter the United States ille- persons who notice, days person to allow the wait 60 unlawfully remain here are none- gally and informa- government’s correct the federal stay in often allowed to the United theless and prove presence, their lawful tion and adjudication of their status pending States If again days elapsed. check after 60 have they may eventually granted legal be and government again responds the federal status. Id. at 972. person is unlawful- undocumented then ly present, Department the Police will court concluded that sec- district pro- a revocation notice. This notice issue 4(D) 2, 3(L), are conflict tions and occu- person’s vides for revocation of the they present an obsta- days. after 45 Under this pancy license of a federal accomplishment cle to the occu- process, person’s an undocumented objective. at 972-73. The district Id. uncertainty for a pancy will rest on they court isolated these sections because lengthy period. aliens, harboring illegal “prohibit[ ] provid[e] for the revocation of occu- person if an would

Even undocumented pancy penalties licenses and for certain license, applying occupancy hazard for an revocation.” Id. at 973. following such license person’s under the Ordinance this penalty pro- The court reasoned that these inevitably revoked. And will be persons visions remove undocumented reported to process, person will be Fremont, political states or from and “[i]f authorities. This is how the Ordi- federal action to re- independent subdivisions take keep persons nance will undocumented out jurisdiction, their essen- move aliens from they be deterred of Fremont —either will tially forcing them from one state or com- dwellings attempting from to rent identity munity to another where their their licenses revoked will have obscured, may be the struc- whereabouts and be forced to leave. The Ordinance for the clas- Congress ture has established from prevents persons undocumented sification, adjudication, potential re- Fremont, which is tantamount renting impaired.” will Id. at city moval of aliens be preventing living them from 973. at all.16 Moreover, problems may Ordinance creates Department not take ac-

15. The Police potential tenants government's for all landlords and tion if ascertainment obtaining complicating process of person’s or tenta- status is inconclusive effect, goes housing. the Ordinance into wait for a "final ascer- If tive and must instead try liability may limit their risk of Department landlords tainment.” The Police harboring by finding not to rent to verify reasons attempt independently an undocu- any person they suspect undocumented. to be person's status. mented consider We must whether the Ordi- The Third Circuit addressed an identical harboring prohibition Lozano, nance F.3d “stands as an obstacle to the accom- Hazleton, at 179.' Pennsylvania enacted an plishment pur- and execution of the full “ ordinance making it ‘unlawful for any poses objectives Congress.” of Hines . person or business entity that owns a Davidowitz, 52, 67, v. 312 61 S.Ct. U.S. dwelling in the City unit to harbor an (1941). 399, 85 L.Ed. 581 “What is a illegal unit, in the dwelling alien knowing sufficient obstacle is a matter of judg- inor disregard reckless of the fact that an ment.” Foreign v. Nat’l Trade Crosbf to, entered, alien has come or remains in Council, ” 363, 373, 2288; 530 U.S. 120 S.Ct. States in United of violation law.’ Id. (2000). 147 L.Ed.2d 352 majority The con- is word-for-word the same language This cludes that the directly Ordinance does not used Fremont’s harboring provision. remove Hazleton’s persons harboring prohibition undocumented Fre- from was also enforced through system of mont, and thus the Ordinance does permits, and the Hazleton ordinance re- conflict with the power. federal removal I quired prospective prove renters to their disagree majority with the on this matter citizenship or residency lawful to obtain a judgment. of I would affirm the district permit. Id. at 180. plaintiffs The Loza/no application court’s of preemption. conflict enjoin sued to the Hazleton pre- ordinance However, this district court go did not far enforcement, aas facial challenge. Id. at enough. I would determine that all of 181. 2, 3, sections 4 preempted and are The Third Circuit concluded that they are an obstacle to the comprehensive “[tjhrough housing provisions, its Hazleton system federal of removal and the uniform attempts regulate based residence sole- enforcement of immigration law. con- The ly immigration status.” Id. at 220. clusion housing provisions that the of the The court also determined that the Hazle- Ordinance ton are conflict “in sup- ordinance was essence” about re- ' moval of persons undocumented from the ported by three of our sister circuits— “ city, because is difficult to ‘[i]t conceive of every yet speak circuit on this issue. a more effective method’ of ensuring that Alabama, United States v. 691 F.3d 1269 persons do not enter or in a remain locali- — (11th Cir.2012), denied, U.S.-, cert. ty than precluding ability their to live in 2022, (2013); 133 S.Ct. 185 L.Ed.2d 905 Boats, it.” Id. at (quoting 220-21 Bonito Villas at Parkside City Partners v. Boats, Inc., Inc. v. Thunder Craft Branch, (5th Cir.), Farmers 675 F.3d 802 141, 160, 109 S.Ct. 103 L.Ed.2d 118 (5th vacated 2013 WL 3791664 Cir.2013 en (1989)). appears plain “[I]t pur- banc); Hazleton, Lozano v. 620 pose of housing provisions these is to en- (3d Cir.2010), F.3d 170 vacated re- sure that lacking legal immigration aliens — consideration, manded status reside somewhere than other Hazle- for further U.S.-, ton.” Id. at 224. 131 180 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d 243 (2011), part, aff. in in part rev. 2013 WL The Third housing Circuit held (7/26/2013) 3855549 en banc. conflict preempted17 were be- Supreme (en banc) (3d Cir.2013). 17. The Court vacated and Whiting remanded light for further consideration in Lozano of its regulating concerned an Arizona law the em- opinion in Whiting, Commerce v. Chamber ployment persons, of undocumented but did - -, U.S. S.Ct. 179 L.Ed.2d harboring housing not involve the issue of — (2011). Lozano, Hazleton 2958, regulations. gave Court no di- -, U.S. 180 L.Ed.2d 243 regarding rection on 's hold- remand Lozano (2011). part, part aff. in rev. in WL injunction against en- upheld permanent undocu- attempted to remove cause city housing provi- on a of the Hazleton from the “based forcement persons mented sions. Id. immigration current sta- at 224. snapshot of their tus, order than based on a federal rather Next, the Fifth Circuit addressed of removal.” Id. produces at 221. This housing nearly ordinance identical to Fre- law because unlawful conflict with federal in Farmers Branch.20 675 F.3d mont’s status is not presence or undocumented The Farmers Branch ordinance simi- removability or every equivalent with case larly required prospective would have with eventual removal. “Under occupan- an city apply renters in the for law, immigration status does an unlawful Fremont, cy license. Id. Just as undoc- instantly, inevitably, to remov- not lead for this license would applicants umented per- al.” Id. Additionally, undocumented required been to declare that have procedural are afforded numerous sons knowledge any lack of identification num- federal law before protections under Id. establishing presence. their lawful ber issue. See id. may at of removal order Fremont, a declaration Just as such government The federal will some- 197. prompt city verify appli- the would prose- not to times exercise its discretion federal immigration cant’s status with the removal, tacitly allow[ing] “thereby cute a eventually government and would lead to a whose sta- presence of those technical of the license for all undocu- revocation ” Id. at 222. Even ‘illegal.’ tus remains Id. The Farmers Branch persons. mented commenced, proceeding is once a removal face, challenged ordinance was also on its from certain it will result in re- it is far Id. at 806. pre-enforcement. Therefore, removing an un- moval.18 Id. panel Fifth conclud- opinion Circuit person city documented from a based on immi- illegal ed that removal of “[t]he status, exhibits “either a current unlawful grants precise is thus the and intended understanding or a refusal to rec- lack of Id. at 810. effect Ordinance.” complexities immigra- of federal ognize removal, the court Based on this effect of tion law.” Id. The Hazleton ordinance the ordinance was conflict held per- removed undocumented would have preempted.21 Id. at The court rea- 817. city affording them sons from the without sought Branch soned that Farmers re- if any procedural protections and even persons by compel- undocumented move permit those government federal would city, thereby ling departure their from part19 to remain. Based in on persons Id. law, setting immigration policy. the court its own this conflict with federal Therefore, holdings housing ings harboring. 19. The court also concluded that the these regulations are unconstitutional of may the Third Circuit's reconsidera- survive immigration field tion. at 220-21. INA. Id. hearing, of a removal 18.At the conclusion rehearing granted en 20. The Fifth Circuit immigration judge decide that the un at Parlcside in Farmers Branch. Villas banc Branch, Farmers 688 F.3d person Partners v. documented is not removable. Loza of (5th Cir.2012). Vacated 2013 WL no, (citing 620 F.3d at 197 8 U.S.C. (en banc) (2013). I discuss the case 1229a(c)(l)(A)). immigration Even if the Reavley’s reasoning Judge here because the of person judge the undocumented is determines opinion panel logical persua- for the removable, judge may grant relief in the sive. removal, postponement cancella form of removal, adjustment tion of or even of status that the ordinance 21. The court also held permanent Id. to that of a lawful resident. regulation immigration. preempted as a Branch, 1229a(c)(4), 1229b). §§ Farmers 675 F.3d at 811. (citing U.S.C. 813. The Farmers Branch ordinance thus that Alabama has poli- crafted calculated “threatens the careful balance that the fed- cy expulsion, seeking to make the lives government foreign eral must maintain in unlawfully present aliens so difficult as impedes preroga- affairs and the federal to force them to retreat from the state.” deciding tive for how to treat immi- illegal This, concluded, Id. the court grants.” Id. at 815. The Fifth Circuit Alabama cannot do. expulsion “[T]he permanent injunction affirmed the against power Alabama seeks to through exercise ordinance, part because stood as section 27 conflicts with Congress’s com- “an authority obstacle over im- prehensive statutory framework governing migration and the foreign conduct of af- alien removal.” Id. Removal of undocu- fairs.” Id. at 817. persons by mented the state of Alabama conflicts with federal gives law because it recently,

Most the Eleventh Circuit ad- “regard no of the statutory pro- dressed a similar ordinance United cesses or avenues for granting an alien States v. Alabama.22 Al- 691 F.3d 1269. permission to lawfully remain within the though many provisions of the Alabama country.” Furthermore, Id. at 1295. challenged, law were two are relevant state law which removes First, undocumented here. section 13 created a state persons from that state conflicts with a harboring crime for an per- undocumented federal objective son, “Congress because in- which included renting dwelling tends the Executive Branch to retain dis- an undocumented person. Id. at 1277. cretion Second, expulsion over decisions and appli- section 27 prohibited, with limited cations for Ultimately, relief.” Id. exceptions, the any enforcement of con- court held that section tract entered 27 was person. an undocumented only sections, government Id. at the federal may 1278. Both challenged on pre-enforcement, their face determine who must were be removed and who deemed 1287, may preempted. at remain. Id. A locality may Id. 1296. The court state or not “unilaterally first determined that section any 13 was both determine that alien unlawfully field and conflict preempted. present Id. at in the 1287- States United 88. explained The court cannot live territory.” “section 13 within the state’s undermines the Id. Congress intent of to con- fer discretion on the Executive Branch — States, U.S.-, Arizona v. United concerning matters immigration.” Id. at 2492, (2012) 183 L.Ed.2d 351 also Furthermore, court found that supports this dissent. Arizona reaffirmed prohibition

the rental in section 13 “effec- immigration basic principles law. “The tuates an expansion untenable of the fed- Government of the United States has eral harboring provision.” Id. at 1288. broad, power subject undoubted over the Ultimately, the court determined that sec- of immigration and the status of aliens.” tion 13 was conflict preempted because it Only Id. at 2498. the federal government mandated enforcement of additional regu- may immigration determine the policy of lations not contemplated by the INA. Id. may our nation and legis- states not enact

The Eleventh designed Circuit also lation found section achieve their own immi- 27 preempted. Notably, gration policy. Id. at 1296. Id. at 2506. One court important aspect immigration stated that section 27 would remove law and persons Alabama, undocumented from policy government entrusted to the federal exercising exclusively thus pow- power alone is the to control the removal “[Tjhe er. Id. at 1293. The court was persons “convinced of from the United States: Alabama, Supreme recently 22. The Court denied a writ of certiorari in 133 S.Ct. 2022. have to the discre- difference from federal law would process is entrusted removal Arizona to achieve its own immi- Federal Government.” Id. allowed tion of the emphasized gration policy. Although the need Id. section 6 did 2506. Arizona also uniform, immigra- directly remove undocumented national voice on for a state, it person remov- from the the mere fact that particularly tion issues of policy, removability process “touch on touched on the federal removal al. about Decisions Giving must be made with created a conflict. state officers foreign relations and person power at 2506-07. decide whether one voice.” Id. being could be detained for removable “vi- principles, Based on these principle pro- olates the that the removal chal- struck down three of the four Court cess is entrusted to the discretion of the lenged provisions of the Arizona law. Two Id. Federal Government.” 5(C) and were provisions, sections provisions of the Arizona law preemption. struck down based on conflict These two 5(C) facially preempted, made it a state misdemeanor were conflict before Section apply Although “unauthorized aliens” to the law was ever enforced. crime for uncertainty recognized for work in Arizona. Id. at 2503. The Court that “a basic 5(C) although Court concluded that section about what law means and how will [a] finding pursued goal against a common with federal law— be enforced” caution employment— preemption pre-enforcement the deterrence of unlawful conflict stage, implicitly there was a conflict the method of en- id. at the Court also recognized forcement. Id. at 2505. The Court deter- that where the effect of a law certain, that not Congress mined had chosen and the conflict with federal law is impose penalties pre-enforcement preemption criminal on undocu- conflict is en- in persons engage tirely appropriate. mented who unautho- This was the case with 5(C) employment rized was no federal and 6 of the Arizona A sections law. —there 5(C). counterpart may finding to section Id. at 2503- court refrain from perhaps OS. This was conflict it preemption section conflict where would need contrary Arizona enforce- that a in chose assume law will be construed mechanism, creating way ment “an a conflict. But obstacle to creates this sort regulatory system Congress assumption necessary the chose.” is not in all cases pre-enforcement analysis. By Id. at 2505. conflict striking down two sections Arizona Supreme Court also found section 6 grounds, law on conflict the preempted. conflict Id. at 2507. Section certainty in Court confirmed that a conflict provided for warrantless arrests where an permits preemption a court to find conflict probable officer had cause to the believe pre-enforcement stage. at the arrestee was removable. Id. 2505. The in uncertainty Court found this section conflict with There is no about the effect it gave federal law because state law en- of the Ordinance and no need to make greater authority assumptions speculate forcement officers to ar- about how it will Arizona, Congress gave immigra- implemented. rest than in the be Just as Ordinance, tion officers. Id. 2506. “This state effect of the and thus conflict, authority any grounds entirely pre- could be exercised without for clear input purpose from the Federal about enforcement. The and effect of Government partic- whether an arrest is warranted in a the Fremont ordinance is exclusion and Like Permitting persons.23 ular case.” Id. such a marked removal of undocumented majority disputes undoubtedly purpose persons. 23. The that the Ordinance But this is any effects direct removal of undocumented Alabama, regulatory system Congress stacle to the contracting provision to make life so 132 S.Ct. at 2505. is the “[I]t chose.” Fremont ordinance seeks persons undocumented political for business branches of the difficult Government, The Ordinance leaves they must retreat. Federal rather than that of no realistic persons with undocumented Judiciary, either the or the Federal States housing. “The undeniable way to attain regulate entry the conditions of is thus to effect of the Ordinance practical Diaz, residence of aliens.” Mathews v. departure of aliens from the compel the S.Ct.-1883, 48 L.Ed.2d states, cities, foreign coun- other City to (1976). Any action a state or locali- Branch, 675 F.3d at 813. tries.” Farmers ty persons to remove undocumented inter- power with the of the fed- feres exclusive exercises com- government The federal government eral over removal. Fremont the remov- control over plete and exclusive may “unilaterally any Fremont not determine that persons. of undocumented al usurp power by removing this unlawfully present not alien the United from its bound- persons [city’s] undocumented terri- States cannot live within gov- meaningful, the federal Alabama, aries. “To be tory.” 691 F.3d at 1295. over residence exclusive control ernment’s immigration and the residence of Illegal any country political must extend to persons undocumented the United Lozano, 620 F.3d at 221. subdivision.” States is a national issue. treat- “[T]he of re- emphasized importance Arizona of national ment of aliens entails issues impera- and the national moval decisions beyond parochial concern that reach con- one voice. 132 tive that be made with cerns of individual states.” Farmers 6 of Although at 2506-07. section S.Ct. Branch, F.3d at States and cities directly law not remove the Arizona did “may have understandable frustrations persons from undocumented immi- problems by illegal caused to detain an state —it allowed state officers gration,” they “may pursue policies but person being remova- undocumented Arizona, that undermine federal law.” preempt- Supreme Court found ble—the “Legal imposition at 2510. to removal. Id. ed because it was related distinct, unusual, extraordinary bur- a much closer The Fremont ordinance has ... an obligations on aliens bears dens than did section 6. relationship removal inseparable relationship to the welfare and it, too, principle “violates the that the So states, merely tranquility of all the and not is entrusted to the discre- process removal tranquility to the welfare and of one.” Id. at tion of the Federal Government.” Hines, 65-66, 61 S.Ct. 399. connection be- 2506. If the more remote enough removal is tween section 6 and impose The Ordinance will distinct must trigger preemption, conflict same persons pre- undocumented burden on the Ordinance. be true of renting housing them from Fre- venting housing This denial of rental mont. an to the The Ordinance creates obstacle And, city. to removal from the paramount objective of a be- accomplishment federal clear, made as the Court has comprehensive cause it with the interferes exclusively to the fed- removal is entrusted system adjudication and removal Therefore, the Ordi- government. eral persons. Like section of undocumented accomplish- 5(C) Arizona, to the poses is “an ob- nance obstacle the Ordinance " locality by precluding remain' in a than and will be its result. 'It of the Ordinance Lozano, ability 620 F.3d at their to live in it.” of a more effective is difficult conceive ensuring persons enter method’ of do not 220-21. objective, and should ment of a federal enjoined preemption. on conflict

be based America,

UNITED STATES

Plaintiff-Appellee FONDER, D. Defendant-

Steven

Appellant.

No. 13-1141. of Appeals,

United States Court

Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: June 2013.

Filed: June

Case Details

Case Name: Fred Keller, Jr. v. City of Fremont

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

Date Published: Jun 28, 2013

Citation: 719 F.3d 931

Docket Number: 12-1702, 12-1705, 12-1708

Court Abbreviation: 8th Cir.