Eleventh Circuit Substantially Upholds Injunctions on Alabama and Georgia Laws Affecting Illegal Immigrants | Practical Law

Eleventh Circuit Substantially Upholds Injunctions on Alabama and Georgia Laws Affecting Illegal Immigrants | Practical Law

The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued opinions in three cases relating to state immigration laws, holding that several provisions of Alabama's and Georgia's laws penalizing illegal immigrants are preempted by federal immigration law. 

Eleventh Circuit Substantially Upholds Injunctions on Alabama and Georgia Laws Affecting Illegal Immigrants

by PLC Labor & Employment
Published on 23 Aug 2012 • Alabama, Georgia
The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit recently issued opinions in three cases relating to state immigration laws, holding that several provisions of Alabama's and Georgia's laws penalizing illegal immigrants are preempted by federal immigration law.

Key Litigated Issues

On August 20, 2012, the US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit issued opinions in three cases involving Alabama and Georgia immigration laws. In United States v. Alabama, the key litigated issue was whether certain sections of Alabama's immigration law are preempted by federal immigration law. In the companion case, Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit analyzed whether the Alabama law violates the Equal Protection Clause. In Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia, the key litigated issue was whether Georgia's immigration law is preempted by federal immigration law.

Background

Alabama Law

On June 2, 2011, the Alabama legislature passed House Bill 56, the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act. The Beason-Hammon Act, which contains several new immigration enforcement provisions, was signed by Governor Robert Bentley on June 9, 2011, with an effective date of September 1, 2011.
In United States v. Alabama, the US filed suit before the law took effect, challenging ten provisions of the Act as preempted by federal law. In a separate lawsuit, Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama, private plaintiffs argued that the entire Beason-Hammon Act is unconstitutional and is preempted by federal immigration law.
On August 29, 2011, the US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama granted a temporary injunction to consider the challenges to the Beason-Hammon Act. On September 28, 2011, the court issued dual opinions enjoining several sections of the Beason-Hammon Act, including Sections:
  • 11(a), which criminalizes an illegal immigrant's application, solicitation or performance of work as an employee or independent contractor in Alabama.
  • 13, which criminalizes concealing or transporting illegal immigrants, or inducing them to live in Alabama.
  • 16 and 17, which penalize employers who hire illegal immigrants.
The unenjoined provisions of the Beason-Hammon Act became effective on September 29, 2011. The plaintiffs appealed this ruling regarding the six provisions of the Beason-Hammon Act not enjoined by the district court, and sought an injunction pending the appeal on Sections:
  • 10(a), which permits law enforcement to charge immigrants unable to demonstrate their lawful presence in the US with a misdemeanor.
  • 12(a), which allows Alabama officials to check the immigration status of certain persons who are seized by law enforcement.
  • 18, which requires police to check immigration status during traffic stops based on reasonable suspicion of unlawful status.
  • 27, which bars Alabama courts from enforcing contracts involving an illegal immigrant party.
  • 28, which requires schools to check new students' immigration status.
  • 30, which makes it a felony for an illegal immigrant to apply for a driver's license, license plate or nondriver identification card.
On October 14, 2011, the Eleventh Circuit granted the plaintiffs' request for an injunction regarding Sections 10 and 28 (see Legal Update, 11th Circuit Enjoins Enforcement of Two Additional Provisions of Alabama Immigration Act).
Later, on March 8, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit modified the injunction pending an ultimate disposition on the appeal, and also enjoined enforcement of Sections 27 and 30 (see Legal Update, Eleventh Circuit Enjoins Enforcement of Two More Provisions of Alabama Immigration Act).

Georgia Law

In April 2011, Georgia enacted House Bill 87, the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act of 2011. On June 2, 2011, several private plaintiffs filed a pre-enforcement constitutional challenge to Sections 7 and 8 of the Illegal Immigration Act, claiming that they are preempted by the federal Immigration and Nationality Act.
Section 7 of the Illegal Immigration Act criminalizes:
  • Transporting or moving an illegal immigrant.
  • Concealing or harboring an illegal immigrant.
  • Inducing an illegal immigrant to enter Georgia.
Section 8 of the Illegal Immigration Act authorizes Georgia law enforcement officers to investigate the immigration status of an individual if:
  • The officer has probable cause to believe that the individual committed another crime.
  • The individual cannot provide one of the pieces of identification listed in the statute, such as a Georgia driver's license or Georgia identification card.
On June 27, 2011, in Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal, the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia preliminarily enjoined enforcement of Sections 7 and 8, holding that each was preempted by federal law.
The Governor of Georgia and other state officers appealed the district court's order to the Eleventh Circuit.

Outcome

Alabama Law

On August 20, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in United States v. Alabama and in Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama. The Eleventh Circuit waited for the US Supreme Court to issue its opinion in Arizona v. United States, one of two leading cases on state immigration laws (see Legal Update, Supreme Court: Federal Law Preempts Key Provisions of Arizona Immigration Statute).
Relying on Arizona, the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Alabama that:
  • The US is likely to succeed on its preemption claims regarding Sections 10, 11(a), 13(a), 16, 17 and 27 of the Beason-Hammon Act. Therefore, it affirmed the district court's decision to issue a preliminary injunction regarding Sections 11(a), 13(a), 16 and 17, and reversed the district court's decision regarding Sections 10 and 27, remanding for entry of a preliminary injunction.
  • At this stage of the proceedings, the US has not shown that Sections 12(a), 18 and 30 are facially invalid, and therefore affirmed the district court's decision not to preliminarily enjoin the decisions.
In Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama v. Governor of Alabama, the Eleventh Circuit addressed the challenges to the Beason-Hammon Act not covered in United States v. Alabama, which includes, among several minor claims, the private plaintiffs' claim that Section 28 of the Beason-Hammon Act violates the Equal Protection Clause. The Eleventh Circuit reversed and remanded the district court's decision, holding that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their claim and are entitled to a preliminary injunction of Section 28.
On April 29, 2013, the Supreme Court of the United States refused to hear Alabama's appeal and allowed the Eleventh Circuit decision stand (Alabama, et al. v. United States, No. 12-884 (Apr. 29, 2013)).

Georgia Law

On August 20, 2012, the Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion in Georgia Latino Alliance v. Deal, holding that:
  • The plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on their claim that Section 7 is preempted by federal law. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court's preliminary injunction of that Section.
  • The plaintiffs cannot establish that they are likely to succeed on their preemption argument regarding Section 8, because the Georgia law has the same "built-in limitations" as the law upheld by the Supreme Court in Arizona v. United States, and in some ways is less facially problematic than that law. Therefore, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's preliminary injunction of Section 8.
The Eleventh Circuit remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.

Practical Implications

In its three decisions on the Alabama and Georgia laws, the Eleventh Circuit relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Arizona, but extended the reasoning in that case to those sections of the Alabama law that were not analogous to the Arizona law, and upheld preliminary injunctions for most of the contested sections. Even though portions of these laws have been enjoined, employers in Alabama and Georgia should take every precaution when hiring or recruiting employees to ensure that they are authorized to work in the US.
For information on the US immigration system and an overview of nonimmigrant and immigrant visa classifications that may be used by employers, see Practice Note, Hiring and Employing Foreign Nationals in the US: Overview.
For information on employers' obligations to document employees' work eligibility, see Practice Note, Demonstrating the Right to Work in the United States.
For information on employer enrollment and participation in E-Verify, see Practice Note, E-Verify for Employers: Best Practices.

Court Documents