Messing Law Offices Arizona immigration lawyers

Immigration Law
Tel: (520) 512-5432
Email: inquiry@messinglawoffices.com
Fax: (866) 641-2090

Immigration Factoids ™
  Entry to non-immigrants such as visitors, students, and NAFTA workers can be denied if the official believes the non-immigrant intends to stay indefinitely in the U.S., as for example where s/he is engaged or already married to a U.S. citizen. The stated intention to return home after the authorized stay expires is presumed fraudulent. If the non-immigrant is nonetheless granted entry and in the same visit applies to adjust status as an immediate relative of a U.S. citizen, the USCIS officer has authority to overlook the presumed fraudulent intent at the time of entry and approve adjustment.

Skip Navigation Links

Arizona Immigration Lawyer: E-Verify Litigation Summary

Click here to read about Arizona's 2010 anti-Illegal Immigration Law (SB 1070)

1. Introduction

2. Cases and Developments.

  • Federal Litigation over Arizona's law mandating E-Verify
  • In 2007, Arizona passed a law providing for suspension and revocation of business licenses of entities that employ unauthorized aliens. The statute also required employers to verify employees' immigration status using an online database, called e-Verify. In Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011), the United States Supreme Court upheld the law against a challenge that federal law preempted the Arizona statute because "Arizona's procedures simply implement the sanctions that Congress expressly allowed the States to pursue through licensing laws." Whiting, 131 S. Ct. at 1971. "Given that Congress specifically preserved such authority for the States, it stands to reason that Congress did not intend to prevent the States from using appropriate tools to exercise that authority." Id. Finally, the Court noted that Arizona acted in an area of traditional state concern, finding that "[r]egulating in-state businesses through licensing laws is not" an area of exclusive federal interest.

    The State of Arizona had also won at the preliminary levels of the federal courts. The District Court judge's order upholding the law can be viewed here. The Plaintiffs had appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, but the appellate court denied both a temporary order pending appellate review on February 28, 2008, and relief on the merits on September 17, 2008. In the ruling on the merits, the Ninth Circuit stated that the Arizona law was constitutional on its face (that is, in theory) but left open any future ruling on how it might be enforced (in practice).

    If you are an employer who has questions about verifying the immigration status of new hires, or are a federal contractor with questions about new and existing hires and their immigration status, please contact Messing Law Offices for a free seven minute telephonic consultation or to schedule an initial consultation.

  • Missouri city ordinance litigation
  • Though not technically a ruling over the mandatory use of e-verify, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri upheld city ordinances that invoked licensing powers over illegal immigration and provided a safe harbor for employers who obtained employment verification through e-Verify, citing the Arizona's district courts earlier rulings, and using many of the same reasons that were later advanced by the Arizona federal district court in its February 7, 2008 decision on a state's employer sanctions law. Read the Missouri opinion itself here.

  • California Federal No-Match Rule Litigation
  • By Complaint dated August 28, 2007, a coalition of immigration advocacy, civil rights, and union attorneys filed a complaint seeking a federal court order prohibiting enforcement of the 2007 SSA/ DHS No-Match Rule, which by its terms would require employers who received a notice of a mis-match between submitted W-2 or employment authorization forms and government database records to require corrective actions of employees within a three month period or be treated as having hired unauthorized workers thereafter under federal law, exposing the employers to monetary sanctions. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. While this is not technically a final ruling on the merits, the preliminary injunction bars enforcement nationwide of the 2007 SSA/ DHS No-Match Rule and subsequent amendments to it. ( (View the text of a March 2008 SSA No Match Proposed Rule here.) The SSA has announced that it will continue not to send SSA No-Match letters until the California litigation is resolved.

  • Federal Litigation over Illinois' Law Prohibiting Use of E-Verify until certain conditions are met.
  • On September 25, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security sued the State of Illinois in federal court to prevent enforcement of a state law prohibiting employers from using the E-Verify system, until certain performance levels are reached or the program becomes federally mandated. View a copy of the complaint here. Illinois stipulated not to enforce the law until the litigation was resolved.

    On March 12, 2009, the Federal District Court for the Central District of Illinois ruled the Illinois state law invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. View a copy of the decision here.

  • Maryland Contractor Federal Litigation
  • On December 23, 2008, the National Chamber of Commerce with other entities filed suit in the Maryland Federal District Court challenging new regulations that require government contractors to verify and reverify employees involved in certain federal government contract work. View a copy of the complaint here. According to the American Immigration Lawyer's Association, the U.S. Department of Justice has preliminary agreed to suspend enforcement of the rule from the anticipated date of January 15, 2009 to February 20, 2009, presumably to allow for court consideration of the lawsuit and/or possible reconsideration by the new Administration.

    On August 25, 2009, Judge Alexander Williams of the U.S. District Court for Maryland dismissed the suit, holding that there was no legal or factual issue for trial. The Court held that a Presidential Executive Order required use of e-Verify for federal procurement purposes and no contractor was required to use the system. It could simply refrain from seeking federal contracts. Furthermore, nothing in immigration statutes enacted by Congress prevented the President from enacting an Executive Order that required the use of e-Verify by government contractors.View a copy of the full decision here.

    The court ruling paves the way for the entry in force of a federal rule on the use of e-Verify by federal contractors, which had been delayed since January because of the pending case. The rule implements an executive order originally enacted by the previous administration that mandates contractor use the system to verify employment status on federal government procured work. View more information about E-Verify.

Common themes in all suits are whether E-Verify is accurate and reliable, and the extent to which the federal government and the various states can regulate immigration and employment relations within the United States.

If you are an employer who has questions about verifying the immigration status of new hires, or are a federal contractor with questions about new and existing hires and their immigration status, please contact Messing Law Offices for a free seven minute telephonic consultation or to schedule an initial consultation.

At Messing Law Offices, we provide high quality legal services and expertise to families, working men and women, and businesses. If you have a concern in the areas of family based immigration, business based immigration, employment based immigration, or naturalization and you are seeking the help of an experienced immigration lawyer, call Messing Law Offices for professional Arizona immigration attorney assistance.

 
John Messing has been reappointed the Liaison from the American Bar Association (SciTech Section) to United States Citizenship & Immigration Services 2010-2012. Read the October 2011 Report on the USCIS proposed Transform E-filing System by John Messing, Tucson immigration lawyer.

Messing Law Offices  accepts payments through Visa, Mastercard, Discovery and American Express credit cards, and Paypal
Make Payments to Messing Law Offices
 
Copyright JHM 2007-11

Messing Law Offices, P.L.C., based in Tucson, Arizona, provides immigration and naturalization attorney services to the communities of Avondale, Chandler, Douglas, Flagstaff, Gilbert, Glendale, Goodyear, Kingman, Mesa, Nogales, Peoria, Phoenix, Prescott, Safford, Scottsdale, Sedona, Sierra Vista, Sun City, Surprise, Tempe, Tucson and Yuma as well as Coconino County, Gila County, Maricopa County, Pima County, Pinal County and Yavapai County. Immigration services also offered in San Diego and Southern California.

tel.: 520-512-5432
. Member, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), American Bar Association (ABA).


This website is best viewed with Javascript enabled in the browser.

The information provided in this website is not legal advice and should not be interpreted as legal advice. This website is intended to provide a basic understanding of this information in summary form. This information may not be comprehensive, is subject to change, and may not apply to all individual circumstances. Any information received here should be confirmed with the appropriate government agencies or with an attorney, particularly as it relates to your individual circumstances. Your use of this website indicates your agreement to be bound by our Terms of Use. No attorney-client relationship is created by the provided content.