Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Edmondson
| Citation | 594 F.3d 742 |
| Decision Date | 02 February 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. 08-6128.,No. 08-6127.,08-6127.,08-6128. |
| Parties | CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF the UNITED STATES of America; Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce and Associated Industries; Metropolitan Tulsa Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; Greater Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, Inc.; Oklahoma Restaurant Association; Oklahoma Hotel and Lodging Association, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. W.A. Drew EDMONDSON, in his official capacity as Attorney General for the state of Oklahoma; Keith McArtor, Stan Evans, Mark Ashton, Ann Cong-Tang, Elvia Hernandez, Rita Maxwell, Teresa Rendon, Sammie Vasquez, Sr., and Juanita Williams, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma Human Rights Commission, Defendants-Appellants, and Thomas E. Kemp, Jr., Jerry Johnson, and Constance Irby, in their official capacities as members of the Oklahoma Tax Commission, Defendants-Appellants. American Civil Liberties Union; National Immigration Law Center; Change to Win; Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Colorado Association of Commerce and Industry; Illinois Chamber of Commerce; Indiana Chamber of Commerce; Kansas Chamber of Commerce; Kentucky Chamber of Commerce; Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry; New Jersey Chamber of Commerce; Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry; Tennessee Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Texas Association of Business; Association of Washington Business; West Virginia Chamber of Commerce; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area; Asian American Legal Defense Education Fund; Asian Pacific American Legal Center; Centro Legal, Inc.; Immigration Equality; La Raza Centro Legal; Legal Aid Society-Employment Law Center; National Center for Lesbian Rights; Southern Poverty Law Center; Women's Employment Rights Clinic; Human Resource Initiative for a Legal Workforce; Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc., Amici Curiae. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (10th Circuit) |
Before KELLY, LUCERO, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
The Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act of 2007 (the "Act" or the "Oklahoma Act") is one of a multitude of recent state enactments that regulate illegal immigration and verification of employment eligibility. This case implicates three provisions of the Act. Section 7(B) forces businesses to utilize the Basic Pilot Program to verify the work authorization status of their employees on pain of debarment from contracting with Oklahoma public employers. Section 7(C) makes it a discriminatory practice for an employer to terminate an authorized worker while retaining an employee that the employer knows or reasonably should know is unauthorized to work. Section 9 requires contracting entities either to verify the work eligibility of their individual independent contractors or withhold certain taxes from those contractors. Otherwise, the contracting entity is liable to the State for the money not withheld.
Plaintiffs, various chambers of commerce and trade associations ("plaintiffs" or the "Chambers"), challenged Sections 7(B), 7(C), and 9 of the Act. They claimed that all three sections were expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law and moved for a preliminary injunction to bar Oklahoma's Governor, Attorney General, Human Rights Commission, and Tax Commission (collectively "defendants" or "Oklahoma") from enforcing the challenged provisions. Defendants opposed a preliminary injunction and moved to dismiss. Oklahoma argued that the Chambers lacked standing, that certain defendants were immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment, and that the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, deprived the district court of jurisdiction to enjoin Section 9. The district court denied the motions to dismiss and granted the preliminary injunction. All defendants, save the Governor, appeal.
Faced with the same issues that were before the district court, we conclude: (1) the Chambers have standing; (2) that the Eleventh Amendment precludes the case only insofar as the Attorney General is named as a defendant in the challenge to Sections 7(C) and 9; and (3) the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over the Chambers' challenge to Section 9. We further hold that the Chambers are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that Section 7(C) is expressly preempted and that Section 9 is impliedly preempted. Moreover, the remaining considerations favor issuance of a preliminary injunction.
Although their reasoning differs, my colleagues conclude the district court erred in its determination that Section 7(B) is preempted, and thus the panel reverses the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of Section 7(B). I dissent from the judgment of the court on this issue and would hold that Section 7(B) is impliedly preempted and that the issuance of a preliminary injunction was appropriate. Accordingly, this opinion is that of the court except with respect to sections V.B.2 and V.B.4.
We have jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to consider the district court's denial of Eleventh Amendment immunity, P.R. Aqueduct & Sewer Auth. v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U.S. 139, 147, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993), and under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the grant of a preliminary injunction. The panel dismisses in part, reverses in part, and affirms in part.
This case requires us to consider the interplay between the federal employment verification regime and that of the Oklahoma Act. We begin by outlining these potentially-conflicting systems.
Enacted in 1986, the Immigration Reform and Control Act ("IRCA") created "a comprehensive scheme prohibiting the employment of illegal aliens in the United States." Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U.S. 137, 147, 122 S.Ct. 1275, 152 L.Ed.2d 271 (2002). Section 101(a)(1) of IRCA makes it "unlawful for a person or other entity . . . to hire . . . for employment in the United States an alien knowing the alien is an unauthorized alien." 8 U.S.C. § 1324a(a)(1), (a)(1)(A). An "unauthorized alien" is defined as an "alien [who] is not at that time either (A) . . . lawfully admitted for permanent residence, or (B) authorized to be so employed by [IRCA] or by the Attorney General." § 1324a(h)(3).
Federal law exhaustively details a specialized administrative scheme for determining whether an employer has knowingly employed an unauthorized alien.1 § 1324a(e). An employer that does so is subject to a range of civil and criminal penalties, including fines, § 1324a(e)(4), cease and desist orders, id., and imprisonment, § 1324a(f)(1). Consistent with its comprehensive nature, IRCA includes an express preemption provision: "The provisions of this section preempt any State or local law imposing civil or criminal sanctions (other than through licensing and similar laws) upon those who employ, or recruit or refer for a fee for employment, unauthorized aliens." § 1324a(h)(2).
IRCA also establishes an "extensive `employment verification system,' designed to deny employment to aliens who (a) are not lawfully present in the United States, or (b) are not lawfully authorized to work in the United States." Hoffman Plastic, 535 U.S. at 147, 122 S.Ct. 1275 (citations omitted). Known as the I-9 system, employers are required to verify the identity of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Alabama
...... a federal power.”), superceded by statute as stated in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S.Ct. 1968, ...The majority would have us believe that Congress has provided the Executive with the power to veto ...It did neither. Chamber of Commerce of United States v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 765 (10th Cir.2010)(emphasis added). By enacting Section ......
-
Dist. of Columbia v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., Civil Action No. 20-119 (BAH)
...... of statutory interpretation that "subsequent failed legislation tell[s] us little if anything about the original meaning of" a statutory provision). ... the states will not be able to recover monetary damages"); Chamber of Commerce v. Edmondson , 594 F.3d 742, 770–71 (10th Cir. 2010) ......
-
N.Y. State Telecomms. Ass'n, Inc. v. James
...(citing Odebrecht Const., Inc. v. Sec'y, Fla. Dep't of Transp. , 715 F.3d 1268, 1289 (11th Cir. 2013) ; Chamber of Commerce v. Edmondson , 594 F.3d 742, 770–71 (10th Cir. 2010) ; and Iowa Utils. Bd. v. FCC , 109 F.3d 418, 426 (8th Cir. 1996) ).Beginning June 15, 2021, Plaintiffs will suffer......
-
Fontenot v. Hunter
......protected by the Commerce Clause," and "the right to pursue a trade without being subjected to ...v. City of Rawlins , 889 F.3d 1189, 1198 (10th Cir. 2018) ; Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Edmondson , 594 F.3d 742, 765 (10th Cir. 2010). ......
-
Ready Or Not, Here They Come: State E-Verify Laws And What Employers Should Know
...IIRIRA § 402(b)(1). Id. at 402; see Chamber of Commerce v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 768 (10th Cir. 2010) (internal citations See Federal Acquisition Regulation, 48 C.F.R. pts. 1-53 (2010). Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 23-211, 212, 212.01. Ariz. Contractors Ass'n v. Candelaria, 534 F.Supp.2d 103......
-
EQUITY AND THE SOVEREIGN.
...not irreparable, through the assertion of a constitutional defense in the state proceeding. (108) See, e.g., Chamber of Com. v. Edmondson, 594 F.3d 742, 770-71 (10th Cir. 2010) ("Imposition of monetary damages that cannot later be recovered for reasons such as sovereign immunity constitutes......