Cheat Sheet: A quick guide to the American stalemate on immigration policy
InsideCounsels August cover story, How the immigration policy stalemate is hurting businesses and the economy, examines the recent 5-3 Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of Arizonas controversial 2010 immigration law and its implications for employers nationwide.
July 31, 2012 at 06:10 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
InsideCounsel's August cover story, “How the immigration policy stalemate is hurting businesses and the economy,” examines the recent 5-3 Supreme Court ruling that struck down much of Arizona's controversial 2010 immigration law and its implications for employers nationwide. While the decision in Arizona v. U.S. eased many employers' anxieties by affirming the supremacy of federal immigration law over a hodge-podge of state legislation, some experts say that U.S. immigration policy is still stymieing economic growth.
Preemption Affirmed
In its Arizona v. U.S. ruling, the court overturned three of the immigration law's four provisions, one of which barred illegal immigrants from seeking work or being employed in Arizona. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy noted that federal law has already laid down guidelines for employment verification and alien registration, which preempt state regulations.
Some experts believe the court's ruling will dissuade other states from passing immigration legislation of their own. “Employers can breathe a bit easier with the implications from this ruling that the growing trend of a patchwork of different states' immigration laws may finally abate,” said Jackson Lewis Partner Sean Hanagan.
Enhanced Enforcement
In his first term, President Obama has shifted the focus of immigration policy from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) raids to ICE paperwork audits and fines, with the aim of deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records. He has also instituted policies such as the recent DREAM Act, which would allow some young illegal immigrants, brought to the U.S. as children, to remain in the country.
“The nature of enforcement has changed,” according to Ford & Harrison Partner Charles Roach. “Now the focus is on the employer and doing desk audits of I-9s. The incidence of I-9 audits has increased in number, frequency and fines under the Obama administration.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSenators Grill Visa, Mastercard Execs on Alleged Anticompetitive Practices, Fees
Trump's SEC Likely to Halt 'Off-Channel' Texting Probe That's Led to Billions in Fines
Trump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readFTC Sues Cash-Advance Fintech Dave, Says It Deceives the 'Financially Vulnerable'
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250