In this case, filed on August 15, 2006 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, a collection of public interest organizations challenged the Pennsylvania city of Hazleton's ordinance penalizing those who rent to or hire undocumented immigrants. This was the first city ordinance of its kind, and the suit received a great deal of press. The ordinance, titled “Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance” (Immigration Ordinance), immediately served as a model for several dozen other cities' similar enactments.

The same day suit was filed, public interest organizations representing the plaintiffs sent a letter to the City requesting that it revoke the IIRA at the council meeting that evening. The City declined and instead passed a companion ordinance titled “Tenant Registration Ordinance” (Registration Ordinance).

Under threat, on September 1, 2006 the City entered a stipulation, filed with the District Court (Judge James M. Munley), to forego enforcement of the Immigration Ordinance until it gave the plaintiffs 20 days notice; the plaintiffs agreed to forego seeking an injunction until there was an actual threat of enforcement. The City then began the process of passing a new version of the Immigration Ordinance; that new version was enacted on September 21, 2006, along with a third ordinance entitled the “Official English Ordinance.”

On October 30, 2006, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint, challenging the amended ordinances (both the Immigration and the Registration Ordinances) and a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order. The District Court granted plaintiffs' motion in part and entered a TRO on October 31, 2006. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 459 F.Supp.2d 332 (M.D. Pa. 2006). On November 1, 2006, the District Court entered a scheduling order setting the matter for a hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction and consolidated it with the trial on the merits.

On November 11, 2006, the District Court extended the TRO for 120 days to allow the parties to conduct limited discovery and to fully brief the issues in advance of the Consolidated Trial, which would be set in January 2007. After discovery commenced, Plaintiffs moved for a protective order to allow plaintiffs to refrain from disclosing their identities and immigration status to defendants. The motion was granted over defendants' objection. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 239 F.R.D.397 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 15, 2006).

On December 28, 2006, the City amended the Immigration Ordinance again, this time by adding an “implementation and process” section. Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on January 12, 2007 to challenge the City’s additional revisions to the IIRA and the RO. Defendant moved to dismiss and the plaintiffs in turn moved for summary judgment. The Court consolidated those motions with the trial. Several pre-trial rulings followed regarding contested evidentiary issues. Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 241 F.R.D.252 (M.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2007) and Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 2007 WL 775589 (M.D.Pa. Mar. 11, 2007).

The Court presided over the Consolidated Trial from March 12 through March 22, 2007. During the trial, the City again amended the Immigration Ordinance. The Court determined, against plaintiffs' briefing, that it had jurisdiction to address only the new amended version, not prior versions.

On July 26, 2007, the District Court (Judge Munley) issued a 206-page Decision and Verdict declaring the IIRA and RO unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the City from enforcing the ordinances. Judge Munley found the ordinances were pre-empted by federal law and violated plaintiffs’ due process rights. He concluded: “[t]he genius of our Constitution is that it provides rights even to those who evoke the least sympathy from the general public. In that way, all in this nation can be confident of equal justice under its laws. Hazleton, in its zeal to control the presence of a group deemed undesirable, violated the rights of such people, as well as others within the community. Since the United States Constitution protects even the disfavored, the ordinances cannot be enforced.” Lozano v. City of Hazleton
496 F.Supp.2d 477, 555 (M.D.Pa. 2007).

The City filed a notice of appeal on August 23, 2007. The notice was amended the next day. Plaintiffs moved for an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court agreed to reserve ruling on the fee application pending defendant's appeal. As of the date of this summary, the appeal was still pending.

In a separate action, the City's insurance company, Scottsdale Ins. Co., filed a declaratory judgment action in the District Court, seeking a declaration that it was no longer obligated to pay for the defense of this case, nor was it obligated to satisfy any judgment rendered against the City.

District Court Judge Munley has created a website to provide information to the public about this case. The site is: http://www.pamd.uscourts.gov/Lozano/lozano.htm

Dan Dalton - 10/19/2007

compress summary