About Me

My photo
Beverly Hills, California, United States
Eli Kantor is a labor, employment and immigration law attorney. He has been practicing labor, employment and immigration law for more than 36 years. He has been featured in articles about labor, employment and immigration law in the L.A. Times, Business Week.com and Daily Variety. He is a regular columnist for the Daily Journal. Telephone (310)274-8216; eli@elikantorlaw.com. For more information, visit beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com and and beverlyhillsemploymentlaw.com


Tuesday, December 20, 2011

Justice Department and Plaintiffs Group Ask Appeals Court Not to Delay Arguments Over Alabama Immigration Law

The Huntsville Times reported that: Lawyers for the Justice Department and a group of 36 plaintiffs asked a federal appeals court this morning not to delay argument over the Alabama immigration law pending the Supreme Court's ruling in the Arizona immigration law case.

Alabama and Georgia both asked the Atlanta-based 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last week to delay the briefing schedule and oral argument over their immigration laws, since the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Arizona's case. Oral arguments in the cases involving Alabama and Georgia's immigration law are currently set for the week of Feb. 27.

The Arizona case will be argued in the Supreme Court next year though no date has been set, with a decision expected sometime in June.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange argued since some parts of Alabama's law are similar to Arizona's, waiting for the Supreme Court's decision would provide answers on some parts of the law and also guidance on state vs. federal immigration responsibilities.

Arizona and Alabama's laws direct law enforcement officers to conduct immigration checks on people stopped for traffic violations and those taken into custody on other offenses. Both laws also criminalize an attempt by an illegal immigrant to seek work.

Alabama also argued that since an 11th Circuit Court panel in October rejected a request to stay four parts of the law, the plaintiffs were unlikely to prevail.

In a filing this morning, Justice Department attorneys said several portions of the law have no parallel in the Arizona case and that delaying the briefing would continue to cause injury. The Justice Department also argued that the panel that denied the preliminary injunction understood the case was going to be heard quickly, given that an expedited briefing and argument schedule was ordered.

The plaintiffs opposing Alabama's law, led by the Hispanic Coalition of Alabama, also opposed the stay. They argued that if the court was willing to enjoin sections of the law currently in effect until the Supreme Court rules, they would support a stay.

But they oppose a stay if the current ban on contracts and government business transactions with illegal immigrants and the police immigration checks provisions remain in place.

No comments: