Lechuga v. City Of Hazleton

620 F.3d 170

Pedro LOZANO; Humberto Hernandez; Rosa Lechuga; John Doe 1; John Doe 2; John Doe 3, a Minor, by His parents; Jane Doe 1; Jane Doe 2; Jane Doe 3; John Doe 4, a Minor by His parents, Brenda Lee Mieles; Casa Dominicana of Hazleton, Inc.; Hazleton Hispanic Business Association; Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition; Jane Doe 5; John Doe 7; Jose Luis Lechuga

v.CITY OF HAZLETON, Appellant.

No. 07-3531.

United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit.

Argued Oct. 30, 2008.

Opinion filed Sept. 9, 2010.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.

Witold J. Walczak, Esq. (ARGUED), American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh, PA, Omar Jadwat, Esq. (ARGUED), Lee P. Gelernt, Esq., Jackson Chin, Esq., Foster Maer, Esq., Ghita Schwarz, Esq., Puerto Rican Legal Defense & Education Fund, New York, NY, Jennifer Chang, Esq., Lucas Guttentag, Esq., San Francisco, CA, Thomas B. Fiddler, Esq., White & Williams, Ilan Rosenberg, Esq., Thomas G. Wilkinson, Jr., Esq., Cozen & O'Connor, Philadelphia, PA, Elena Park, Esq., Cozen & O'Connor, West Conshohocken, PA, Shamaine A. Daniels, Esq., Harrisburg, PA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kris W. Kobach, Esq. (ARGUED), Professor of Law, University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, Harry G. Mahoney, Esq., Carla P. Maresca, Esq., Andrew B. Adair, Esq., Deasey Mahoney, Valentini & North, Philadelphia, PA, Elizabeth S. Gallaway, Esq., Mountain States Legal Foundation, Lakewood, CO, Michael M. Hethmon, Esq., Immigration Reform Law Institute, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

Damon Scott, Florence, SC, Paul J. Orfanedes, Esq., James F. Peterson, Esq., Judicial Watch, Inc., Richard A. Samp, Esq., Washington Legal Foundation, Washington, DC, Andrew L. Schlafly, Esq., New York, NY, for Amicus Appellants.

Robin S. Conrad, Esq., National Chambers Litigation Center, Carter G. Phillips, Esq., Eric A. Shumsky, Esq., Sidley Austin, Kenneth J. Pfaehler, Esq., Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal, John W. West, Esq., Bredhoff & Kaiser, Washington, DC, Burt M. Rublin, Esq., Ballard Spahr, Nancy Winkelman, Esq., Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, PA, Diana S. Andsager, Esq., Mayer Brown, Chicago, IL, Charles D. Weisselberg, Esq., Berkley Law School, Berkley, CA, Jacob S. Pultman, Esq., Allen & Overy, Mark D. McPherson, Esq., Morrison & Foerster, New York, NY, for Amicus Appellees.

Before McKEE, Chief Judge, and NYGAARD and SILER, ^* Circuit Judges.

OPINION

McKEE, Chief Judge.

+-----------------+
¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦
+-----------------¦
+-----------------+
 

+-----------------------------------------+
¦I. ¦INTRODUCTION                     ¦175¦
+---+---------------------------------+---¦
+---+---------------------------------+---¦
¦II.¦FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND¦176¦
+-----------------------------------------+
 

+-----------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Hazleton and its Ordinances¦176¦
+-----------------------------------+
 

+-----------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦The Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance¦177¦
+++--+--------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦The Rental Registration Ordinance           ¦180¦
+-----------------------------------------------------+
 

+---------------------------+
¦¦B.¦The Plaintiffs     ¦180¦
++--+-------------------+---¦
¦¦C.¦Procedural History ¦181¦
+---------------------------+
 

+--------------------------------------------+
+----+-----------------------------------+---¦
¦III.¦JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW¦181¦
+----+-----------------------------------+---¦
+----+-----------------------------------+---¦
¦IV. ¦SEVERABILITY AND STANDING          ¦181¦
+--------------------------------------------+
 

+--------------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦General Principles of Standing¦183¦
++--+------------------------------+---¦
¦¦B.¦Constitutional Standing       ¦184¦
+--------------------------------------+
 

+----------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦The Employment Provisions¦184¦
+++--+-------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦Private Cause of Action  ¦187¦
+++--+-------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦3.¦Housing Provisions       ¦188¦
+----------------------------------+
 

+------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Landlord Plaintiffs ¦188¦
++++--+--------------------+---¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Tenant Plaintiffs   ¦191¦
+------------------------------+
 

+----------------------------+
¦¦C.¦Prudential Standing ¦192¦
+----------------------------+
 

+-------------------------------------+
+---+-----------------------------+---¦
¦V. ¦ANONYMITY AND CONFIDENTIALITY¦194¦
+---+-----------------------------+---¦
+---+-----------------------------+---¦
¦VI.¦DISCUSSION                   ¦196¦
+-------------------------------------+
 

+--------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦Federal Immigration Law ¦196¦
+--------------------------------+
 

+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦The Immigration and Nationality Act                            ¦196¦
+++--+---------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦2.¦The Immigration Reform and Control Act                         ¦198¦
+++--+---------------------------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦3.¦The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act¦200¦
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
 

+----------------------------------------+
¦¦B.¦State and Local Immigration Laws¦201¦
++--+--------------------------------+---¦
¦¦C.¦Pre-emption                     ¦202¦
+----------------------------------------+
 

+-------------------------------+
¦¦¦1.¦Employment Provisions ¦206¦
+-------------------------------+
 

+-----------------------------------------+
¦¦¦¦a.¦Presumption Against Pre-emption¦206¦
++++--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦¦b.¦Express Pre-emption            ¦207¦
++++--+-------------------------------+---¦
¦¦¦¦c.¦Conflict Pre-emption           ¦210¦
+-----------------------------------------+
 

+----------------------------+
¦¦¦2.¦Housing Provisions ¦219¦
+----------------------------+
 

+---------------------+
+-----+-----------+---¦
¦VII. ¦CONCLUSION ¦224¦
+-----+-----------+---¦
+-----+-----------+---¦
¦VIII.¦APPENDIX   ¦224¦
+---------------------+
 

+----------------------------------------------------+
¦¦A.¦The Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance¦224¦
++--+--------------------------------------------+---¦
¦¦B.¦Rental Registration Ordinance               ¦231¦
+----------------------------------------------------+

I. INTRODUCTION

“Since the late 19th century, the United States has restricted immigration into this country.... But despite the existence of these legal restrictions, a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering the United States, and now live within [the] various States.” Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 205, 102 S.Ct. 2382, 72 L.Ed.2d 786 (1982). The dispute we are now called upon to address is one of an increasing number of cases that have arisen from actions that state and local governments have taken because of illegal immigration.

The City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania (“Hazleton” or the “City”) is appealing a permanent injunction that the district court entered prohibiting Hazleton's enforcement of two local ordinances that attempt to regulate employment of, and provision of rental housing to, certain aliens. Several individuals and organizations sued to enjoin enforcement of the ordinances arguing that they violate the United States Constitution, as well as federal and state statutes. The district court agreed and enjoined Hazleton from enforcing the ordinances in their entirety.

We now hold that the district court erred in reaching the merits of the challenge to the private cause of action provision because no plaintiff has standing to challenge that provision. Accordingly, that portion of the district court's order will be vacated. However, although our reasoning differs somewhat from the analysis used by the district court, we conclude that it correctly enjoined the rest of the challenged ordinances. We will therefore affirm the district court's order in all other respects.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Hazleton and its Ordinances

The City of Hazleton is located in Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F.Supp.2d 477, 484 (M.D.Pa.2007). Under Pennsylvania law, Hazleton is classified as a City of the Third Class and operates under an “Optional Plan B” form of government. Id. Its executive is a mayor, and its legislature is a city council. Id.

Hazleton's population was only 23,000 in 2000. Id. Between 2000 and the time of trial, however, its population increased to between 30,000 and 33,000. Id. Much of this growth was due to an influx of Latino families who migrated from New York and New Jersey to Pennsylvania in the early 2000s. Id. These newcomers included United States citizens and lawful permanent residents, as well as persons lacking lawful immigration status, who are often referred to as “undocumented immigrants” or “illegal aliens.” ¹ Id.

Hazleton's mayor, as well as other local officials, subsequently concluded that aliens lacking lawful status were to blame for certain social problems in the City, see J.A. 1672-85, and that the federal government could not be relied upon to prevent such aliens from moving into the City, or to remove them, see Lozano, 496 F.Supp.2d at 522 n. 44. Accordingly, City officials decided to take independent action to regulate the local effects of unlawful immigration. See J.A. 1385, 1486-87. Beginning on July 13, 2006, Hazleton's City Council began enacting a series of ordinances designed to address these concerns. Lozano, 496 F.Supp.2d at 484.

This litigation concerns two of those ordinances: the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance (“IIRAO”), which consists of Ordinance 2006-18, as amended by Ordinance 2006-40 and Ordinance 2007-6; and the Rental Registration Ordinance (“RO”), which...