Heated immigration battleground shifts to South Carolina
Much like its neighbor a few hundred miles west across the great state of Georgia, South Carolinas recent immigration law is under scrutiny by the federal government.
November 01, 2011 at 08:43 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Much like its neighbor a few hundred miles west across the great state of Georgia, South Carolina's recent immigration law is under scrutiny by the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) yesterday sought an injunction in South Carolina against portions of its state law, signed June 27 and set to take effect Jan. 1, 2012.
The South Carolina law is facing similar criticism to Alabama's legislation over regulations requiring police to check the status of suspected illegals if they're detained for a separate offense. South Carolina also makes it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor an illegal immigrant.
The DOJ wrote in a filing to the Charleston Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina that the government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution.
Despite the significant outcry against these stringent new immigration laws and the DOJ's protests, in late September, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn upheld significant sections of Alabama's law, stating that they aren't pre-empted by federal regulations.
In her decision, Judge Blackburn let stand provisions authorizing police to check detainees' immigration status as well as public schools' ability to verify students' status. However, she enjoined regulations that criminalize illegals from applying for jobs and people from concealing, harboring or shielding illegals.
For more on the battle in South Carolina, read Reuters.
Much like its neighbor a few hundred miles west across the great state of Georgia, South Carolina's recent immigration law is under scrutiny by the federal government.
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) yesterday sought an injunction in South Carolina against portions of its state law, signed June 27 and set to take effect Jan. 1, 2012.
The South Carolina law is facing similar criticism to Alabama's legislation over regulations requiring police to check the status of suspected illegals if they're detained for a separate offense. South Carolina also makes it a crime to knowingly transport or harbor an illegal immigrant.
The DOJ wrote in a filing to the Charleston Division of the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina that the government has pre-eminent authority to regulate immigration matters under the U.S. Constitution.
Despite the significant outcry against these stringent new immigration laws and the DOJ's protests, in late September, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn upheld significant sections of Alabama's law, stating that they aren't pre-empted by federal regulations.
In her decision, Judge Blackburn let stand provisions authorizing police to check detainees' immigration status as well as public schools' ability to verify students' status. However, she enjoined regulations that criminalize illegals from applying for jobs and people from concealing, harboring or shielding illegals.
For more on the battle in South Carolina, read Reuters.
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