Appeals Court Rejects ‘Anti-Immigrant’ Provisions of Oklahoma Law

A federal appeals court has upheld parts of an injunction against an Oklahoma law that sought to subject businesses that hire undocumented immigrants to financial penalties, dictate who can or cannot be fired and require contractors to withhold taxes for workers without proper documentation. But the court’s Feb.2 decision leaves open the question of whether states can force employers to use the federal government’s EVerify System to check an employee’s legal

status.

OPINION DIVIDED

In a divided opinion, a three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver ruled that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and several other pro-business groups had legal standing to challenge Oklahoma’s immigration law.

The Chamber’s lawsuit was supported by civil rights groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the National Immigration Law Center.

FEDERAL LAW PREVAILS

The court struck down two of the law’s provisions, saying that the new civil action created by the law to penalize businesses that employ unauthorized workers and the creation of a tax on businesses that decline to verify the employment eligibility of independent contractors are both preempted by federal immigration law.

However, the court allowed the law’s provision requiring contractors who do business with Oklahoma state agencies to use the E-Verify System, a federal web site that allows employers to ensure that their employees are allowed to work in the United States.

E-Verify has caused controversy after numerous reports of “false positives” incorrectly identifying individuals as unauthorized for work. The Chamber says it wants the U.S. Supreme Court to step in to clarify the decision.

E-VERIFY ‘MUDDLED’

“The Tenth Circuit’s ruling on the important E-Verify question was hopelessly muddled,” Robin Conrad, executive vice president of the National Chamber Litigation Center, the Chamber’s public policy law firm, told Financial.com. “The Supreme Court needs to step in and clarify whether states can set national immigration policy.”