EPIC - USA v. State of Alabama

USA v. State of Alabama

Concerning the Constitutionality of Alabama HB-56

Latest News |
Background |
EPIC's Interest in USA v. Alabama |
Legal Documents |

Resources |
News Reports

Background

The United States Department of Justice and various public interest groups brought an action in the District Court of Alabama seeking a preliminary injunction and declaration that the Beason-Hammon Alabama Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (HB-56) is pre-empted by federal law and is unconstitutional. Alabama’s HB-56, which was signed into law on June 9, 2011, is considered the nation’s strictest state anti-immigration law. The law has numerous provisions that touch on topics ranging from education, contract law, voter identification, and police identification of suspected non-residents. For example, the law requires that police make a reasonable attempt to determine a person’s citizenship and immigration status during any stop given a “reasonable suspicion” that the person is an immigrant. It also requires every business in the state to verify employees’ immigration status using the federal E-Verify system.

The Alabama Republican Caucus has provided an outline of the primary provisions of HB-56 on its website. These provisions include:

Prohibits a business from knowingly employing an unauthorized alien

Employers proven to violate this prohibition are subject to probation on the first offense, and revocation of state and local business licenses upon repeat offenses.
Knowingly filing a false or frivolous accusation against a business would be a Class C misdemeanor, which carries a penalty of three months in jail, and a fine of up to $500.

Requires employers to verify the legal status of potential employees with either the federal “E-verify” program or a system to be designed by Alabama Department of Homeland Security.
Makes registering to vote or attempting to vote by an unauthorized alien a Class C felony.
Requires those applying for and receiving public benefits to provide proof of legal presence in the U.S.
Makes entering or attempting to enter into a business transaction with the state by an unauthorized alien a Class C felony.
Makes knowingly manufacturing, reproducing or selling of false identification documents, or committing vital records identity fraud, a Class C felony.
Provides that verification of lawful presence for state-distributed public benefits, including Medicaid and CHIP, shall be made through a verification program operated by the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security.

In response to a motion for a preliminary injunction, Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn granted the motion for preliminary injunction as to some of the law’s provisions, but noted that others could continue to be applied through the severability provision. The citizenship verification requirements for law enforcement officers and employers (through E-Verify) are now being applied in Alabama based on Judge Blackburn’s refusal to grant a preliminary injunction.

EPIC's Interest in USA, et al v. Alabama

EPIC has a continued interest in limiting the scope of government identification requirements in all contexts. Specifically, EPIC has argued in favor of the right to anonymity and Fourth Amendment protections from unreasonable searches and seizures in cases such as Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, 542 US 177 (2004) and US v. Jones, 615 F.3d 544 (D.C. Cir. 2010), cert. granted, No. 10-1259 (June 27, 2011). EPIC also argued against new photo identification and proof of citizenship requirements for federal elections in both a hearing before the House Commission on the Judiciary and an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, 553 U.S. 181 (2008).

Legal Documents

11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Order on Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal

United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama

Memorandum Opinion and Order -- USA v. Alabama
Order of the Court -- Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al v. Robert Bentley, et al
Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum in Support -- Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama, et al v. Robert Bently, et al

Resources

Related Cases

United States of America v. State of Arizona, No. 10-01413 (D. Ariz. prelim. injunction granted July 28, 2010); prelim. injunction aff’d , No. 10-16645 (9th Cir. April 11, 2011); petition for certiorari filed, No. 11-182 (Aug. 10, 2011)(holding that the US demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of the claim that federal law preempts the Arizona law's verification requirement and authorization of warrantless arrests based on civil removability)
Crawford v. Marion County Election Bd., 553 U.S. 181, 128 S. Ct. 1610, 170 L. Ed. 2d 574 (2008)(upholding Indiana law requiring voters to present photo ID)
Chamber of Commerce of U.S. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968, 179 L. Ed. 2d 1031 (2011)(holding that the "Legal Arizona Workers Act" was not preempted by IRCA's savings clause, and the E-Verify requirements did not conflict with federal law)
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal, No. 1:11-CV-1804-TWT, 2011 WL 2520752 (N.D. Ga. June 27, 2011)(holding that plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on merits of their claim that federal law preempted provisions permitting local authorities to investigate suspects' immigration status)

Law Review Articles and Books

Devon W. Carbado & Cheryl I. Harris, Undocumented Criminal Procedure, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 1543, 1545 (2011)
Jennifer M. Chacn, A Diversion of Attention? Immigration Courts and the Adjudication of Fourth and Fifth Amendment Rights, 59 Duke L.J. 1563 (2010)
Jamie L. Stulin, COMMENT, Does Hiibel Redefine Terry? The Latest Expansion of the Terry Doctrine and the Silent Impact of Terrorism on the Supreme Court's Decision to Compel Identification, 54 Am. U. L. Rev. 1449, 1450 (2005)
William H. Weisman, NOTE, Where Everybody Knows Your Name Compulsory Identification and the Fallacy of the Hiibel Majority, 71 Brook. L. Rev. 1421 (2006)