On May 3, 2011, a coalition of immigrant rights groups and individual immigrants filed this class action lawsuit against the State of Utah in the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, Central Division, challenging the state's immigration-enforcement law, House Bill 497 (HB 497). HB 497 was a severe, anti-immigrant law that criminalized everyday activities, such as driving an undocumented immigrant to the store and authorized police to stop and detail an individual simply to verify his or her immigration status. The plaintiffs, represented by the state and national ACLU, the National Immigration Law Center, and private counsel, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983; the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201; and state law, claiming that the law was unconstitutional.

Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that HB 497, in requiring state and local law enforcement to check the identification of all people they stop, arrest or detain and ascertain whether they are in the country lawfully; allowing them to make warrantless arrests on "reasonable suspicion" that a person is an alien who is (1) subject to a removal order by an immigration court, (2) subject to an immigration detainer request, or (3) charged or convicted in another state with one or more "aggravated felonies;" and criminalizing the act of encouraging or inducing illegal immigrants to come to, enter or reside in Utah, is preempted under the Supremacy Clause and in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of the law's unconstitutionality and an injunction barring enforcement of the law before it came into effect on May 10, 2011.

In passing HB 497, Utah became the first state to follow the lead of Arizona in enacting aggressive immigration-related laws at the state level; Indiana, Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina were soon to follow. For the case challenging the Arizona's SB 1070, see United States v. Arizona [IM-AZ-0015]; for the case challenging Indiana's SEA 590, see Buquer v. City of Indianapolis [IM-IN-0002]; for the case challenging Georgia's HB 87, see Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Deal [IM-GA-0007]; for cases challenging Alabama's HB 56, see United States v. Alabama [IM-AL-0005], Hispanic Interest Coalition v. Bentley [IM-AL-0006], and Parsley v. Bentley [IM-AL-0007]; and for cases challenging South Carolina's Act 69, see Lowcountry Immigration Coalition v. Haley [IM-SC-0001] and United States v. South Carolina [IM-SC-0002].

On May 6, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction. After a hearing on May 10, the district court (Judge Clark Waddoups) issued a temporary restraining order on May 11, barring enforcement of HB 497 pending further order of the court and giving parties time to brief the court regarding the merits of plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. 2011 WL 7143098 (D. Utah May 11, 2011).

Over the course of the summer, various amicus curiae briefs were filed in support of plaintiffs, including those by the governments of Mexico and various Central and South American countries.

On August 1, 2011, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification.

On November 22, 2011, the federal government filed a separate lawsuit challenging the Utah law solely on preemption grounds. It was consolidated with this case on November 28, and on December 15, the Department of Justice filed its own motion for a preliminary injunction.

Rather than deciding on any of the motions before it, on February 21, 2012, the district court declared that it would refrain from making any rulings until the Supreme Court issued its decision in United States v. Arizona (IM-AZ-0015) but confirmed that the restraining order would continue until it ruled on the pending motions for preliminary injunction.

While the district court awaited the Supreme Court’s decision, the plaintiffs filed several notices of supplemental authority in 2013 to support its pending motions for preliminary injunctions. The plaintiffs cited circuit court decisions and argued that those provided further support that HB 497 was unconstitutional on Supremacy Clause grounds.

Once the Supreme Court ruled on all but few motions for United States v. Arizona, the Judge Waddoups ruled on all three pending motions for preliminary injunctions on June 18, 2014. First, the court ruled against the United States and plaintiffs’ overall facial challenge against HB 497 as a whole because the constitutional language did not expressly preempt all immigration-related state legislation, and the Supreme Court did not hold that the entire field of immigration regulation is either conflict or field preempted. But the court ruled against the key provisions of HB 497, such as Section 10 and 11, which granted warrantless arrest based solely on suspicion of immigration status and made it criminal to assist or encourage undocumented immigrants. The court also put strict limits on when the police could check the identification of detained individuals to verify immigration status. 26 F.Supp.3d 1125.. HB 497 was unconstitutional because it unlawfully interfered with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and authorized and required unreasonable seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

On November 25, 2014, the parties filed a joint report regarding the discussions toward agreeing on a proposed final judgment in light of the court’s preliminary injunction decision. In the proposed final judgment, the State of Utah agreed to permanently scrap the key problematic provisions of HB 497 and implement the remaining sections under restriction. For example, the parties agreed to severely limit Sections 3 and 4 of HB 497, which made it clear that police are not allowed to stop or detain an individual simply to verify their immigration status. The terms of the settlement made clear that the law does not require Utahns to carry identification with them at all times, following the federal district court decision.

On December 4, 2014, the district court entered a judgment per the parties’ proposed final judgment and dismissed without prejudice the plaintiffs’ and the United States’ remaining claims that were not yet adjudicated. On April 28, 2015, the parties notified the court about the settlement of attorney fees and costs and later advised the Court that the payment has been made. The case is now closed.

Christopher Schad - 06/20/2012
MJ Koo - 03/23/2017
Emma Himes - 11/07/2019


compress summary