State & Local: Legislation, Litigation, and Resources

CONTINUING THE PIONEER TRADITION: Illinois' Basic Pilot/E-Verify Laws as a Model Policy. Illinois is the first state to enact laws intended to protect employers and workers who are affected by the federal Basic Pilot/E-Verify program. (10/31/08)

Restrictions on use of Employment Eligibility Verification Systems (new Section 12 of the Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act, Public Act 095-0138).

Employment-related civil rights violations defined (Section 2-102 of the Illinois Human Rights Act, Public Act 095-0137, amended to define new employment-related civil rights violations).

E-Verify: Employer Attestation Form (Illinois Dept. of Labor). The employer must attest that it has (1) received E-Verify training materials from DHS and that all its personnel administering E-Verify have completed the computer-based tutorial, and (2) posted in a clearly visible place (a) the DHS notice that the employer is enrolled in E-Verify and (b) the OSC antidiscrimination notice.

Privacy in the Workplace Complaint Form (Illinois Dept. of Labor).

[BACK TO TOP]

Fact Sheets and Analysis

GENERAL

RESOURCE FOR ADVOCATES | E-Verify: State-specific Facts

Why States and Localities Should Not Require Employers to Participate in Basic Pilot/E-Verify
(HTML | PDF) (revised 2/09)

Talking Points: Oppose State and Local Proposals to Make Basic Pilot/E-Verify Mandatory (1 page, PDF) (revised 2/09)

State and Local Proposals That Punish Employers for Hiring Undocumented Workers Are Unenforceable, Unnecessary, and Bad Public Policy (PDF) (1/08)

Facts About Federal Preemption: How to Analyze Whether State and Local Initiatives Are an Unlawful Attempt to Enforce Federal Immigration Law or Regulate Immigration (6/07)

ARIZONA

Erecting Its Own Tombstone: Arizona's Mandatory Basic Pilot/E-Verify Law. Arizona's requirement that employers verify workers' employment eligibility via Basic Pilot/E-Verify has yielded negative results for the state, its businesses, and its workers. Other states considering similar measures would do well to pay attention to these results. (4/08)

New Arizona Law Requires Employers to Use Flawed Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot (IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS UPDATE, 7/20/07)

What Do the New Immigration Laws & Regulations Mean to Me?: Common Questions and Answers
(Arizona Contractors Association) [English | Spanish]

Advisory Regarding Registering for E-Verify
("Immigration Advisory: E-Verify and October 1 Notice from State," Arizona Contractors Association)

Legal Arizona Workers Act: Frequently Asked Questions about Employer Sanctions Law
(Maricopa County Attorney)

Rehired and Seasonal Employees & I-9 Compliance
(Memo to the Arizona Farm Bureau summarizing the rules and regulations regarding complying with I-9 employment eligibility verification requirements with respect to rehired or seasonal employees, 2/12/08)

ILLINOIS

New Illinois Laws Create Important Protections against Flaws in Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot (IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS UPDATE, 10/5/07)

[BACK TO TOP]

Litigation

ARIZONA

LEGAL ARIZONA WORKERS ACT: LAWSUIT CHALLENGING ITS PROVISIONS
U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
(Formerly known as: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria. The original case filed in the federal district court was: Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., et al. v. Criss Candelaria, et al.)

Lawsuit Challenges Arizona’s Employer Sanctions Law as Being in Conflict with Federal Law (IMMIGRANTS' RIGHTS UPDATE, 10/5/07)

Appeal (from the 9th Circuit) to the U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting
■	U.S. Supreme Court decision affirming the judgment of 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 563 U.S. __ (2011), a challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act (5/26/11)
■	Amicus brief filed by the United States in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (formerly U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), a challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act (9/10)
■	Appeal (from the 9th Circuit) to the U.S. Supreme Court: U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (9/1/10)
■	Petition for Writ of Certiorari: Supplemental Brief -- in U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting (formerly U.S. Chamber of Commerce v. Candelaria), a challenge to the Legal Arizona Workers Act (6/10)

9th Circuit ruling affirming federal district court decision. "We uphold the statute in all respects against this facial challenge, but . . . [i]f and when the statute is enforced, and the factual background is developed, other challenges to [it] as applied in any particular instance or manner will not be controlled by our decision." (9/17/08)
■	ACLU news release: Appellate Court Declines to Overturn Arizona Employer Sanctions Law (ACLU website, 9/17/08)

Appeal to the 9th Circuit of the federal district court decision -- opening and reply briefs, and petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc:
■	Plaintiffs'/Appellants' Petition for Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc, submitted Oct. 1, 2008
■	Plaintiffs'/Appellants' Consolidated Reply Brief, submitted May 13, 2008
■	Plaintiffs'/Appellants' Consolidated Opening Brief to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, filed Apr. 1, 2008
■	(The original complaint filed in federal district court is available below.)

Appeal to the 9th Circuit of the federal district court decision -- amicus briefs:
■	Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area
■	Small Business Legal Center, and Associated Builders and Contractors
■	United States Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

NEWS RELEASE: Civil Rights Coalition to Argue in [Federal District] Court That Arizona Employer Sanctions Law is Illegal (11/14/07)

NEWS RELEASE: Civil Rights Coalition Challenges Arizona Employer Sanctions Law. Lawsuit filed in federal district court challenges new Arizona law that threatens employers with permanent loss of business licenses based on invalid new state requirements; alleges that the law conflicts with federal immigration law and the U.S. Constitution. (9/4/07)
■	Anuncio en Español
■	News release in PDF
■	Complaint (Arizona Contractors Association, Inc., et al. v. Criss Candelaria, et al.)

[BACK TO TOP]

OKLAHOMA

OKLAHOMA LAW:
25 Okla. Stat. § 1313(B)&(C) AND 68 Okla. Stat. § 2385.32

Appeals Court Strikes Down Provisions of Flawed Oklahoma Anti-Immigrant Law Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. v. Edmondson, et al.
■	Brief summary of 10th Circuit Court of Appeals decision, by the American Civil Liberties Union (2/2/10)
■	Decision by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals (2/2/10)

Preliminary injunction (in Chamber of Commerce of the United States et al. v. Edmondson, et al.) postponing enforcement of employment-related portions of Oklahoma anti-immigrant law:
■	Memorandum Opinion and Order (6/4/08)
■	Order of Injunction (6/4/08)

[BACK TO TOP]

Immigrants' Rights Update Articles (back to IRU index)

Flawed District Court Decision Upholds Missouri Local Ordinance Sanctioning Employers of Unauthorized Workers (2/27/08)

Most State Bills Mandating Use of the Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot Fail in 2007 (10/5/07)

Lawsuit Challenges Arizona’s Employer Sanctions Law as Being in Conflict with Federal Law (10/5/07)

New Arizona Law Requires Employers to Use Flawed Employment Eligibility Verification Basic Pilot (7/20/07)

[BACK TO TOP]