Worksite Compliance Resource Center
 
     
» Articles
» Presentations
» Sign-Up for Worksite Enforcement News
   
   

Please feel free to browse through the resources we have made available to learn more about the Worksite Enforcement program. If you want to explore alternative immigration options, you should schedule a consultation with us. A consultation allows us to review all of the facts in your situation, after which we can present you with all of the options you have. We can also quote you a fee for any option you wish to pursue with our assistance after speaking with you.

You can schedule a consultation by calling 215-825-8600, or by using our online consultation form.

We look forward to speaking with you.

Federal Court Enjoins Oklahoma from Enforcing State Immigration Law, Klasko Newsletter Excerpt

July 2008

On June 4, 2008, a federal court in Oklahoma City enjoined Oklahoma from enforcing portions of the state's immigration law, H.B. 1804, that were scheduled to take effect July 1. Among them was a requirement that employers use E-Verify to check work authorizations of employees, which is currently voluntary for private employers under federal law. Judge Robin J. Cauthron found that it was “substantially likely” that Oklahoma's law is preempted by federal immigration law. The lawsuit was filed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other groups.

The court noted that:

[W]hile the public clearly has an interest in issues of illegal immigration, and no court should treat the prospect of overturning state law without grave consideration, the Constitution requires that the will of the States must occasionally give way to the need for uniformity among the States, and that uniformity can only be accomplished through congressional action. Thus, for now, the provisions of H.B. 1804 challenged by Plaintiffs must be enjoined until a final determination can be made about the extent to which States can permissibly regulate without interfering with areas reserved exclusively for congressional action. The Court is not deciding that Plaintiffs will ultimately prevail, rather, when the materials before the Court are viewed as the facts and law exist today, it appears that Plaintiffs are likely to prevail and consequently are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The decision is available at http://www.uschamber.com/assets/nclc/henrypreliminjunction.pdf.
For additional details and a history of the case, see http://www.nfib.com/object/IO_37522.html

Related Information:

 
Home | Our Team | Articles and Events | Consultation | Resources/Links | Contact Us | KlaskoLaw.com | Sitemap
Copyright © 2010 Klasko, Rulon, Stock & Seltzer, LLP. All rights reserved. Review our disclaimer. | Site by LISI