Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 1 of 106

No. 15-15211, 15-15213 & 15-15215
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUENTE ARIZONA, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
The Honorable David G. Campbell
No. 2:14—CV-01356 (DGC) (PHX)
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, ET AL.,
IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

Joshua T. Stehlik, SBN 220241
Nicholas Espíritu, SBN 237665
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
stehlik@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
Telephone: 213.639.3900
Facsimile: 213.639.3911
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 2 of 106

Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 29(a)-(b)(1)-(2), the National Immigration Law
Center (“NILC”) and 28 Co-Amici, as listed in Appendix A, (collectively “Amici”)
submit the accompanying brief in support of the District Court’s order granting
Plaintiffs-Appellees’ request for a preliminary injunction suspending portions of
two Arizona state identity theft criminal statutes. 1
Amici are each non-profit organizations, with no parent corporations or
publicly traded stock. A description of the individual Amici and their corporate
disclosure information is included in Appendix A to the concurrently submitted
brief.
In their accompanying brief, proposed Amici supplement PlaintiffAppellees’ appeal by drawing on their knowledge and, where relevant, the
experiences of their members, to present information within their unique expertise.
In particular, proposed Amici provide this panel with detail regarding the conflict
preemption arguments, the purposes and objectives of Congress in its regulation of
the federal employment eligibility verification system, and the complex array of
workforce protection, humanitarian, and law enforcement interests the federal
government considers when enforcing that system.

1

All parties have consented to this filing and this motion is unopposed. Thus, Amici
have authority to file pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 29(a).

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 3 of 106

No party or party’s counsel authored this brief in whole or in part. No party
or party’s counsel contributed money to fund the preparation or submission of this
brief. No other person except NILC and its counsel contributed money to fund the
preparation or submission of this brief. See FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5).
Amici respectfully request that the Court grant leave to file the
accompanying amicus brief submitted concurrently with this motion.
Date: August 31, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
/s Joshua T. Stehlik
Joshua T. Stehlik, SBN 220241
Nicholas Espíritu, SBN 237665
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
stehlik@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
Telephone: 213.639.3900
Facsimile: 213.639.3911
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 4 of 106

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION
I hereby certify that: (1) all required privacy redactions have been made in
compliance with 9th Cir. R. 25-5; (2) the ECF submission is an exact copy of the
hard copies to be submitted to the court; and (3) the digital submissions have been
scanned for viruses with Adobe Acrobat XI, Version 11.0.12, and according to the
program are free of viruses.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE NATIONAL IMMIGRATION
LAW CENTER, ET AL., IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES with the
Clerk of the Court for the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by
using the appellate CM/ECF system on August 31, 2015. Participants in the case
who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Date: August 31, 2015

/s Joshua T. Stehlik
Joshua T. Stehlik

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 5 of 106

No. 15-15211, 15-15213 & 15-15215
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PUENTE ARIZONA, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,
v.
JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Sheriff of Maricopa County, et al.,
Defendants-Appellants.
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
The Honorable David G. Campbell
No. 2:14—CV-01356 (DGC) (PHX)
AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF OF NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER, ET AL., IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES

Joshua T. Stehlik, SBN 220241
Nicholas Espíritu, SBN 237665
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW
CENTER
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
stehlik@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
Telephone: 213.639.3900
Facsimile: 213.639.3911
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 6 of 106

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................................................................... iii
IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI ..............................................................1
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................1
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................3
I.

State Laws Are Preempted When they Conflict with the Federal
Government’s Ability to Achieve a Balance of Statutory Objectives ...........3

II.

Arizona’s Use of Identity Theft Statutes to Criminalize Fraud in the
Employment Eligibility Verification Process Conflicts with the
Comprehensive Federal Scheme Governing the Same Activity ...................5
A.

Congress’ Objectives in Enacting IRCA Involved a Complex Balance of
Interests ......................................................................................................6

B.

Arizona’s Identity Theft Statutes Intrude on the Federal Scheme
Governing the Same Conduct ..................................................................10

C.

Arizona’s Identity Theft Statutes Present an Obstacle to the Federal
Government’s Ability to Balance Diverse Federal Objectives ...............15

III. Congress Explicitly Subordinated the Federal Interest in Enforcing the
Employment Verification System to the Federal Interest in Protecting
Victims of Trafficking and Certain Other Crimes .......................................27
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................31
i

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 7 of 106

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE .......................................................................32
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ...................................................................32
CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION .......................................................93
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ................................................................................93

ii

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 8 of 106

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
AM Property Holding Corp.,
352 NLRB 279 (2008) .........................................................................................19
Arizona v. United States,
132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012) ................................................................................. passim
Arizona v. Valle Del Sol Inc.,
134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014) ................................................................................... 13,14
Bailey v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc.,
280 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002) ...........................................................................18
Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal Comm.,
531 U.S. 341 (2001) ..................................................................................... passim
Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry,
302 F. Supp. 2d 128 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) ................................................................18
Contreras v. Corinthian Vigor Ins. Brokerage, Inc.,
103 F. Supp. 2d 1180 (N.D. Cal. 2000) ........................................................ 18, 19
Crosby v. Nat’l Foreign Trade Council,
530 U.S. 363 (2000) ...............................................................................................5
CSX Transp. v. Easterwood,
507 U.S. 658 (1993) ...........................................................................................3, 4
Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Locals 14 and 15, Int’l Union of Operating
Eng’rs,
438 F. Supp. 876 (S.D.N.Y. 1977) ............................................................... 18, 19
Farmer Bros. Coffee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd.,
35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 23 (Cal. App. 2005).....................................................................9

iii

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 9 of 106

Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes Mgm’t Ass’n,
505 U.S. 88 (1992) .................................................................................................4
Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of Georgia,
691 F.3d 1250 (11th Cir. 2012) ................................................................... passim
Hines v. Davidowitz,
312 U.S. 52 (1941) .................................................................................................3
Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.,
535 U.S. 137 (2002) ...............................................................................................6
Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v. Nat’l. Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc.,
502 U.S. 183 (1991) ...............................................................................................6
In re Herrera-Priego,
U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Exec. Office for Immigration Review (July 10, 2003) ....21
Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette,
479 U.S. 481 (1987) ...............................................................................................4
Motor Coach Employees v. Lockridge,
403 U.S. 274 (1971) ...............................................................................................5
Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco,
275 F.3d 1199 (9th Cir. 2002) ...............................................................................5
Patel v. Quality Inn S.,
846 F.2d 700 (11th Cir. 1988) ...............................................................................9
Puente Arizona v. Arpaio,
76 F. Supp. 3d 833 (D. Ariz. 2015) .....................................................................11
Rivera v. NIBCO,
364 F.3d 1057 (9th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................17
Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R's Oil, Inc.,
214 F. Supp. 2d 1056 (N.D. Cal. 2002) ...............................................................19

iv

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 10 of 106

Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd.,
467 U.S. 883 (1984) ...............................................................................................9
United States v. Alabama,
691 F.3d 1269 (11th Cir. 2012) .................................................................... 13, 14
United States v. Arizona,
641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................12
United States v. South Carolina,
720 F.3d 518 (4th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................14
Utah Coal. of La Raza v. Herbert,
26 F. Supp. 3d 1125 (D. Utah 2014)....................................................................14
Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting,
732 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................... 13,14
Wyeth v. Levine,
555 U.S. 555 (2009) ...............................................................................................3
Statutes
18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) .................................................................................................11
18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) .................................................................................................11
18 U.S.C. § 3231 ......................................................................................................12
22 U.S.C. § 7101(a) .................................................................................................29
22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(17) ..........................................................................................28
22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(19) ................................................................................... 29, 30
22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(20) ..........................................................................................28
29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) ...............................................................................................18
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(T)................................................................................. 27, 28
v

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 11 of 106

8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U) ................................................................................ 27, 28
8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(iii) .......................................................................... 27, 30
8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) .........................................................................................11
8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(3)(C)(i)......................................................................................11
8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(8) ...............................................................................................29
8 U.S.C. § 1255(l) ............................................................................................. 28, 29
8 U.S.C. § 1255(m) ........................................................................................... 28, 29
8 U.S.C. § 1324a ............................................................................................... 10, 11
8 U.S.C. § 1324b(a) ...................................................................................................7
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(e)(4) .............................................................................................10
8 U.S.C. § 1324a(f) ..................................................................................................10
8 U.S.C. § 1324c ......................................................................................................11
8 U.S.C. § 1427 ........................................................................................................28
A.R.S. § 13-2008(A) ........................................................................................ passim
A.R.S. § 13-2009(A)(3) ................................................................................... passim
Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986,
Pub. L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445.................................................................... passim
Fair Labor Standards Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219 ................................................................................... 17, 18

vi

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 12 of 106

National Labor Relations Act,
29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169.................................................................................... 17, 18
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17....................................................................... 17, 18
Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,
Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464 .................................................................. passim
Rules
FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5) .............................................................................................1
FED. R. APP. P. 29(a) ..................................................................................................1
Regulations
8 C.F.R. § 274a.10 ...................................................................................................10
28 C.F.R. § 0.53 .........................................................................................................8
Legislative Materials
119 Cong. Rec. 14184 (1973) ..................................................................................10
H.R. REP. NO. 99-1000 (1986) (Conf. Rep.) ..............................................................7
H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (II) (1986) ...........................................................................7, 8
H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (I) (1986).............................................................................8, 9
Other Authorities
Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy,
99th Cong. 59 (1985) ...........................................................................................10
ICE Operating Instruction 287.3a, Questioning persons during labor disputes,
...................................................................................................................... passim

vii

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 13 of 106

Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, News Release: Sheriff Now Investigating Uncle
Sam (July 17, 2013) .............................................................................................25
Memorandum from John Morton, Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, Prosecutorial Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and
Plaintiffs (June 17, 2011) ............................................................................. passim
Revised Memorandum of Understanding between the Departments of Homeland
Security and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Dec. 7,
2011) ............................................................................................................ passim
Phil Benson, MCSO: 21 workers with fake IDs busted at Maryvale grocery, World
Now (Jan. 17, 2013) .............................................................................................25
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Fact Sheet: Establishment of Interagency Working Group for
the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration
Laws, ....................................................................................................................23
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement
of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws Action Plan (May 8,
2015), ...................................................................................................................24
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, News Release, US Department of Labor statement on ‘We
Can Help’ campaign (June 24, 2010),. ................................................................19
U.S. Dep’t. of Labor, Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S. Labor Laws to
Immigrant Workers: Effect of Hoffman Plastics decision on laws enforced by the
Wage and Hour Division (Revised 2008), ...........................................................18
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent’s Field Manual §
33.14(h) ................................................................................................................20

viii

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 14 of 106

IDENTITY AND INTERESTS OF AMICI
The interests of the individual Amici and their corporate disclosure
information are attached as Appendix A.
Pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 29(c)(5), Amici states that no party’s counsel
authored this brief in whole or in part, no party or party’s counsel contributed
money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief, and no person
contributed money that was intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief.
All parties have consented to this filing and this motion is unopposed. Thus,
Amici have authority to file pursuant to FED. R. APP. P. 29(a).
INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
Amici respectfully request that this Court uphold the District Court’s finding
that federal law likely preempts portions of two of Arizona’s identity theft statutes,
A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3), which the Arizona legislature passed in
2007 and 2008 and which criminalize the use of false information and documents
to obtain or continue employment. Amici submit this brief to present further detail
regarding Congress’ purposes and objectives in its regulation of the employment of
unauthorized immigrants and the complex array of methods by which the federal
government has chosen to achieve these purposes and objectives. Additionally,
this brief will demonstrate the conflict between Arizona’s use of its identity theft
statutes to prosecute fraud in the employment verification process and the federal
1

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 15 of 106

government’s ability to effectuate its careful and complex balancing of interests in
the enforcement of federal laws regulating the employment of unauthorized
immigrants. 2
Arizona’s identity theft in employment provisions create state sanctions for
the use of fraudulent information and documents to establish employment
eligibility that are separate and distinct from the comprehensive set of sanctions
established by Congress for the same conduct in the Immigration Reform and
Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), Pub. L. 99–603, 100 Stat. 3445, and subsequent
Congressional enactments. In contrast to the exclusively federal enforcement of
IRCA, Arizona’s provisions apply only in Arizona, are enforced only by Arizona
officials and are independent of federal direction or control. Thus, Arizona’s
identity theft statutes create a “conflict in the method of enforcement,” Arizona v.
United States, 132 S. Ct. 2492, 2505 (2012), that interferes with the careful
balancing struck by Congress in its design of the comprehensive federal regulatory
scheme to govern this behavior.
Additionally, Arizona’s creation of a distinct state enforcement scheme that
operates outside federal control, unmoored from the consideration of workforce

2

Although this amicus brief focuses on the conflict presented by Arizona’s laws,
Amici also agree with the arguments made by Appellees that Arizona’s identity
theft statutes unconstitutionally intrude on a field that was reserved for the federal
government. See Appellees’ Answering Br. Re: Prelim. Inj. 24-34, Dkt. No. 50.
2

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 16 of 106

protection, humanitarian, and law enforcement interests that are embodied in the
federal scheme, divests the federal government of its ability to implement its
balancing of enforcement priorities. Further, Arizona’s law is conflict preempted
because it is divorced from the Congressional recognition, explicit in federal law,
that penalties for violating federal employment verification requirements should be
subordinated to the need to protect trafficked individuals and immigrant victims of
certain other crimes. This conflict is not merely a potential obstacle: the actions of
the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (“MCSO”) demonstrate how enforcement of
the state laws has directly conflicted with federal policy goals.
Accordingly, Amici respectfully request that this Court uphold the injunction
against A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 13-2009(A)(3).
ARGUMENT
I.

State Laws Are Preempted When they Conflict with the Federal
Government’s Ability to Achieve a Balance of Statutory Objectives
A central “principle[] of preemption” is “that a state law is preempted where

it ‘stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes
and objectives of Congress.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505 (quoting Hines v.
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67 (1941)); CSX Transp. v. Easterwood, 507 U.S. 658,
663 (1993); accord Wyeth v. Levine, 555 U.S. 555, 577 (2009). The “ultimate task
in any pre-emption case is to determine whether state regulation is consistent with
the structure and purpose of the statute as a whole.” Gade v. Nat’l Solid Wastes
3

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 17 of 106

Mgm’t Ass’n, 505 U.S. 88, 98 (1992). To determine whether state laws stand in
conflict with federal law, courts “look[] to the provisions of the whole [federal]
law, and to its object and policy . . . .” Id. (quotation omitted). Courts must
examine not only the state law’s professed purpose, but also determine its effect on
the federal scheme. See id. at 105. A state law can present such an obstacle where
it interferes with the methods chosen by Congress to achieve its legislative
purposes and objectives. See Int’l Paper Co. v. Ouellette, 479 U.S. 481, 494
(1987).
One way that such a conflict can occur is when “the federal statutory scheme
amply empowers the [the federal government] to punish and deter” the prohibited
behavior, and this authority is used by the federal government to “achieve a
somewhat delicate balance of statutory objectives,” but state law nonetheless
authorizes prosecutions for the same behavior, unmoored from the federal
government’s delicate and deliberate balancing. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs’ Legal
Comm., 531 U.S. 341, 348 (2001). A state scheme that criminalizes, and thus
allows for prosecution of, the same activity, may be preempted where state law
fails to recognize the careful balance of interests contained in federal law. See
Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505 (“a ‘[c]onflict in technique can be fully as disruptive to
the system Congress enacted as conflict in overt policy’”) (quoting Motor Coach
Employees v. Lockridge, 403 U.S. 274, 287 (1971)); see also Crosby v. Nat’l
4

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 18 of 106

Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 379 n.14 (2000) (“Identity of ends does not
end our analysis of preemption.”). Otherwise, “the State would have the power to
bring criminal charges against individuals for violating a federal law even in
circumstances where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme
determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at
2503. For example, in Buckman, the Court held the state law fraud statutes were
preempted from being used to prosecute fraud-on-the-U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (“FDA”) claims because federal law empowers the FDA to pursue
a variety of options aimed at punishing and deterring fraud against the agency, and
these options afforded the agency the flexibility necessary for it to balance
difficult, and often competing, statutory objectives. Buckman, 531 U.S. at 348–51;
see also Nathan Kimmel, Inc. v. DowElanco, 275 F.3d 1199, 1206 (9th Cir. 2002)
(holding that federal preemption also applied in the fraud-on-the-U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency context).
II.

Arizona’s Use of Identity Theft Statutes to Criminalize Fraud in the
Employment Eligibility Verification Process Conflicts with the
Comprehensive Federal Scheme Governing the Same Activity
The statutory structure and legislative history of IRCA demonstrates that

Congress’ purpose in enacting the statute was to create a comprehensive
framework for the regulation of immigrant employment, which includes a
graduated series of penalties for employers who violate its employment eligibility
5

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 19 of 106

verification requirements and sanctions for fraud. These penalties, and their
method of implementation, have been carefully calibrated to allow the federal
government to balance enforcement with consideration of various interests at the
national level, including labor and employment protections. Allowing state
enforcement of parallel penalties for fraud in the employment verification context
undermines the federal control necessary to execute this careful balancing of
enforcement priorities, which has been reflected in various federal interagency
agreements, agency guidance, and agency memoranda. Indeed, MCSO’s
enforcement of Arizona’s identity fraud statutes concretely demonstrates the
obstacle that these laws present to the accomplishment of federal purposes and
objectives.
A. Congress’ Objectives in Enacting IRCA Involved a Complex Balance of
Interests
“Congress enacted IRCA as a comprehensive framework for ‘combating the
employment of illegal aliens.’” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504 (quoting Hoffman
Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd., 535 U.S. 137, 147 (2002)).
One of Congress’ purposes in enacting IRCA was to make combating the
employment of unauthorized immigrants “central to ‘[t]he policy of immigration
law.’” Hoffman 535 U.S. at 147 (quoting Immigration and Naturalization Serv. v.
Nat’l. Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc., 502 U.S. 183, 194 n.8 (1991)).

6

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 20 of 106

IRCA’s regulatory scheme was widespread, affecting not just immigrant
workers but changing the requirements for hiring and employment for all
employees and employers in the United States. Congress had to take into
consideration a range of interests and objectives that extended beyond immigrants
and immigration laws, including preserving the integrity of labor standards for all
workers in the United States, regardless of immigration status.
The legislative history of IRCA makes clear that, in drafting the law,
Congress was balancing its intention to minimize, through an employer sanctions
regime, the employment of individuals who lacked employment authorization and
its countervailing concerns that those employer sanctions would result in increased
discrimination against workers based on their perceived national origin or
citizenship status. See, e.g., H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (II), at 3 (1986), as reprinted in
1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5761 (“It is the committee’s view that if there is to be
sanctions enforcement and liability, there must be an equally strong and readily
available remedy if resulting discrimination occurs.”); H.R. REP. NO. 99-1000, at 3
(1986) (Conf. Rep.), as reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5840, 5842 (“The
antidiscrimination provisions of this bill are a complement to the sanctions
provisions.”). As a result, Congress included in IRCA an antidiscrimination
provision that makes it unlawful for an employer to engage in national origin or

7

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 21 of 106

citizenship status discrimination against protected individuals.3 See 8 U.S.C. §
1324b(a).
The legislative history also reflects Congress’ intent that IRCA not weaken
existing labor protections under federal and state laws:
It is not the intention of the Committee that the employer sanctions
provisions of the bill be used to undermine or diminish in any way
labor protections in existing law, or to limit the powers of federal or
state labor relations boards, labor standards agencies, or labor
arbitrators to remedy unfair practices committed against
undocumented employees for exercising their rights before such
agencies or for engaging in activities protected by existing law.
H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (I), at 8 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5649, 5662;
see also H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (II), at 1 (1986), reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N.
5757, 5758 (expressing same understanding by the House Committee on Education
and Labor). Congress recognized that existing labor protections had to be
preserved for unauthorized workers, or else IRCA would provoke an unintended
consequence – the creation of an economic incentive for unscrupulous employers
to prefer unauthorized workers over their authorized counterparts – directly
contrary to the primary congressional objective of IRCA to deter unauthorized

3

In IRCA, Congress also created the Office of Special Counsel for ImmigrationRelated Unfair Employment Practices within the U.S. Department of Justice to
enforce the new antidiscrimination provision, see IRCA, Pub. L. 99-603, § 102(c),
see also 28 C.F.R. § 0.53, and provided for funds for the Department of Labor’s
Wage and Hour Division to bolster enforcement of employment laws for
undocumented workers. See IRCA, Pub. L. 99-603, § 111(d).
8

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 22 of 106

employment. H.R. REP. NO. 99-682 (II), at 1-2, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at
5758 (“To [limit employment protections] would be counter-productive of our
intent to limit the hiring of undocumented employees and the depressing effect on
working conditions caused by their employment.”). In passing IRCA, Congress
thus explicitly intended to safeguard “labor protections in existing law” in order to
prevent a race to the bottom by unscrupulous employers. H.R. REP. NO. 99-682(I),
at 8, reprinted in 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5662.
This logic has been routinely affirmed by courts in the years since IRCA’s
passage. Ensuring that employees without work authorization receive the same
minimum labor protections as work-authorized workers removes the economic
incentive for employers to hire unauthorized workers. See Sure-Tan, Inc. v. Nat’l
Labor Relations Bd., 467 U.S. 883, 893 (1984) (finding that “[i]f an employer
realizes that there will be no advantage under the NLRA in preferring illegal aliens
to legal resident workers, any incentive to hire such illegal aliens is
correspondingly lessened”); Patel v. Quality Inn S., 846 F.2d 700, 704-05 (11th
Cir. 1988) (“FLSA’s coverage of undocumented aliens goes hand in hand with the
policies behind the IRCA. Congress enacted IRCA to reduce illegal immigration
by eliminating employers’ economic incentive to hire undocumented
aliens…FLSA’s coverage of undocumented workers has a similar effect.”);
Farmer Bros. Coffee v. Workers’ Comp. Appeals Bd., 35 Cal. Rptr. 3d 23, 28 (Cal.
9

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 23 of 106

App. 2005) (making workers’ compensation benefits dependent on federal work
authorization would act as an encouragement for “unscrupulous employers…to
hire aliens unauthorized to work.”).
B. Arizona’s Identity Theft Statutes Intrude on the Federal Scheme
Governing the Same Conduct
IRCA “makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or
continue to employ unauthorized workers.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504. Further it
“requires every employer to verify the employment authorization status of
prospective employees,” and enforces these requirements “through criminal
penalties and an escalating series of civil penalties tied to the number of times an
employer has violated the provisions.” Id. (citing 8 U.S.C. §§ 1324a(e)(4), (f); 8
C.F.R. § 274a.10). IRCA also sets out the specific tools for federal officials to
address anticipated fraud in response to the federal employment verification
system.
When enacting this scheme, Congress explicitly considered proposals to
criminally sanction unlawfully present immigrants for merely seeking or
performing work but ultimately rejected them. See Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504
(citing 119 Cong. Rec. 14184 (1973) (statement of Rep. Dennis) 4; see generally 8

4

See also Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985: Hearings before the
Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, 99th Cong. 59 (1985)
(statement of Sen. Simpson, Chairman, S. Comm. on the Judiciary) (“[I]t was my
10

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 24 of 106

U.S.C. § 1324a. Instead, IRCA’s “comprehensive framework…on the employee
side” imposes only civil penalties “on aliens who seek or engage in unauthorized
work.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2504. This framework only allows for limited
criminal penalties “for unauthorized workers to obtain employment through
fraudulent means.” Id.; see 18 U.S.C. § 1546(b) (creating criminal sanctions for
the use of a false identification document or attestation to satisfy employment
verification requirements); 18 U.S.C. § 1546(a) (prohibiting use of fraudulent
immigration documents “as evidence of authorized . . . employment in the United
States.”).5 Given the comprehensive nature of this federal enforcement scheme,
state laws that place criminal sanctions on noncitizens who “seek, or engage in,
unauthorized employment … interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress

thought, and the thought of the Select Commission, we ought to try the most
humane [way] first, which is to reduce the magnet of jobs.”).
5
While Arizona’s identity theft statutes are potentially “punishable by a prison
term that may exceed five years,” the federal penalties only carry “prison sentences
of five years or less.” Puente Arizona v. Arpaio, 76 F. Supp. 3d 833, 858 (D. Ariz.
2015). Federal law also establishes a range of civil penalties to disincentivize use
of false documents in the employment verification context that are not
contemplated by Arizona’s regulatory scheme. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. §
1227(a)(3)(C)(i) (creating immigration consequences for fraud in the employment
verification process); 8 U.S.C. § 1182(a)(6)(C) (creating immigration
consequences for false claims to citizenship); 8 U.S.C. § 1324c (providing for
potential fines for falsely using a document to obtain employment). As the district
court correctly noted, these “different sanctions” that “‘layer additional penalties
atop federal law,’ likely result in conflict preemption.” Puente Arizona, 76 F. Supp.
3d at 858 (quoting Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights v. Governor of
Georgia, 691 F.3d 1250, 1267 (11th Cir. 2012) (“GLAHR”)).
11

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 25 of 106

with respect to unauthorized employment of aliens.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 250405 (striking down Arizona provision criminalizing unauthorized employment).
While the federal employment verification system imposes penalties for the
use of fraudulent documents in the context of employment eligibility verification,
Congress also prohibited the information provided pursuant to these requirements
from being used for any purpose other than those specified by federal law. See id.
(“Congress has made clear…that any information employees submit to indicate
their work status “may not be used” for purposes other than prosecution under
specified federal criminal statutes for fraud, perjury, and related conduct.”)
(emphasis added); see also United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339, 359 (9th Cir.
2011), aff’d in part, rev’d in part and remanded, Arizona, 132 S. Ct. 2492 (2012)
(federal law “would prohibit Arizona from using personal information in the
verification system for the purpose of investigating or prosecuting violations” of its
unconstitutional state law that criminalized unauthorized employment.).
This limitation on the use of information that is required by the federal
employment verification system to prosecution under specific federal statutes
serves to ensure federal control of the criminalization of these actions because only
federal prosecutors can bring these charges, and these charges can only be brought
in federal court. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231 (“The district courts of the United States
shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of all offenses
12

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 26 of 106

against the laws of the United States.”). The provisions of Arizona’s identity theft
statutes dealing with employment divest federal authorities of the exclusive power
to prosecute these employment verification violations. As the U.S. Supreme Court
has recognized, states’ attempts to independently engage in the enforcement of
immigration related laws “diminish the [Federal Government]’s control over
enforcement and detract from the integrated scheme of regulation created by
Congress.” Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2502 (holding Arizona preempted from
prosecuting state alien registration crimes) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, the diminishment of federal control that would occur if states were
allowed to bring their own prosecutions for fraud in the employment verification
process is similar to that which multiple federal courts, including this circuit, have
recognized can occur in the context of laws criminalizing the harboring and
transporting of unauthorized immigrants. Federal circuits have unanimously held
that federal harboring statutes are part of an “extensive and complex” federal
scheme of criminal sanctions for those who facilitate the unlawful entry, residence,
or movement of aliens within the United States. Valle del Sol Inc. v. Whiting, 732
F.3d 1006, 1024 (9th Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Arizona v. Valle Del Sol
Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1876 (2014); see also United States v. Alabama, 691 F.3d 1269,
1285 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding “federal law ‘provides a comprehensive framework
to penalize the transportation, concealment, and inducement of unlawfully present
13

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 27 of 106

aliens’”); GLAHR, 691 F.3d at 1263-64; United States v. South Carolina, 720 F.3d
518, 531-32 (4th Cir. 2013). The Ninth Circuit recognized with respect to
Arizona’s harboring statute that was held preempted:
the current federal scheme reserves prosecutorial power, and thus
discretion, over smuggling violations to federal prosecutors. By
allowing state prosecution of the same activities in state court,
Arizona has conferred upon its prosecutors the ability to prosecute
those who transport or harbor unauthorized aliens in a manner
unaligned with federal immigration enforcement priorities. In other
words, “the State would have the power to bring criminal charges
against individuals for violating a federal law even in circumstances
where federal officials in charge of the comprehensive scheme
determine that prosecution would frustrate federal policies.”
Valle del Sol Inc., 732 F.3d at 1027 (quoting Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2503); see also
South Carolina, 720 F.3d at 531-32 (holding that state harboring statute
“improperly place[d] in the hands of state officials the nation’s immigration policy,
and strip[ped] federal officials of the authority and discretion necessary in
managing foreign affairs”); GLAHR, 691 F.3d at 1265-66 (“[i]nterpretation of
[state law mirroring federal immigration law] by state courts and enforcement by
state prosecutors unconstrained by federal law threaten the uniform application of
the INA”); Alabama, 691 F.3d at 1287 (“by confining the prosecution of federal
immigration crimes to federal court, Congress limited the power to pursue those
cases to the appropriate United States Attorney”) (internal quotation marks
omitted); Utah Coal. of La Raza v. Herbert, 26 F. Supp. 3d 1125, 1145 (D. Utah
2014) (finding that state criminalization of the same types of behavior as federal
14

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 28 of 106

law “interferes with Congress’ chosen balance”). In addition to the lack of
uniformity, several courts concluded that allowing state prosecution and
adjudication in this area would allow for state authority in matters of federal
immigration law enforcement outside the limited circumstances specified by
federal law and would “interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress” with
respect to the harboring of unauthorized non-citizens. Arizona, 132 S. Ct. at 2505–
06 (noting a difference in the method of enforcement can create a conflict with
federal law).
Thus, Arizona’s identity theft in employment provisions conflict with
federal law because they subvert the ability of the federal government to control
enforcement of the laws governing employment eligibility verification in a way
that allows them to balance this enforcement against a complex array of other
federal interests.
C. Arizona’s Identity Theft Statutes Present an Obstacle to the Federal
Government’s Ability to Balance Diverse Federal Objectives
The federal government must balance a range of federal interests—including
labor and employment, humanitarian, and law enforcement interests—when it
engages in enforcement of federal employment eligibility verification
requirements. Allowing Arizona to prosecute undocumented workers under its
state identity theft laws strips federal officials of the discretion necessary to
balance the various federal concerns implicated in the enforcement of federal
15

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 29 of 106

employment verification requirements. The potential for state actions to frustrate
federal policies is especially acute in the context of federal regulation of the
employment verification process, because the federal government must balance its
interest in the enforcement of IRCA’s fraud provisions with the federal interests in
enforcing federal labor and employment laws. This intent to balance IRCA’s
enforcement provisions, while ensuring protection from immigration-based
retaliation against workers, de-conflicting federal worksite immigration
enforcement with federal labor and employment law enforcement, and
safeguarding the integrity of worksite investigations by federal labor and
employment agencies, is demonstrated through a complex array of federal
interagency agreements, agency guidance, and interagency practices. These
policies and practices allow the federal government flexibility in making a
“measured response to suspected fraud” and are, as such, “a critical component of
the statutory and regulatory framework under which the [federal government]
pursues difficult (and often competing) objectives.” Buckman, 531 U.S. at 349.
MCSO’s enforcement of Arizona’s identity theft in employment laws demonstrates
how state enforcement in this realm frustrates the full effectuation of federal
policies.
As discussed above, Congress, in enacting IRCA, recognized that pure
enforcement of its sanctions against unauthorized workers, without regard to other
16

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 30 of 106

existing workplace protections, fails to fully effectuate the purposes of IRCA to
disincentivize the hiring of unauthorized workers and undermines the ability of the
federal government to achieve other important federal interests. Centrally,
immigrant workers facing civil and labor rights violations are too frequently
chilled from enforcing their workplace rights for fear that they will face
immigration consequences as a result. See, e.g., Rivera v. NIBCO, 364 F.3d 1057,
1064-65 (9th Cir. 2004) (noting that “most undocumented workers are reluctant to
report abusive or discriminatory employment practices” since “plaintiffs found to
be undocumented might face criminal prosecution and deportation”); cf. Arizona,
132 S. Ct. at 2504 (“IRCA’s framework reflects a considered judgment that
making criminals out of aliens engaged in unauthorized work—aliens who already
face the possibility of employer exploitation because of their removable status—
would be inconsistent with federal policy and objectives.”). Unaddressed, this
chilling effect undermines the ability of the federal government to enforce federal
labor and employment laws, and ultimately erodes workplace standards for all
workers.
The need to protect workers against the potential for employers to use
immigration sanctions to chill workers’ ability to enforce their workplace rights is
a central component of the effectuation of the statutes protecting workers’ rights.
Notably, the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219, Title VII
17

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 31 of 106

of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e-2000e-17, and
the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 151-169, all protect the
rights of workers by prohibiting employers from using workers’ immigration status
as a means of retaliating against them for asserting their rights under these laws.
The FLSA, which was enacted to eliminate substandard working conditions
in the industries within its coverage, specifically provides employees protection
from retaliation in order to insulate employees from adverse actions from their
employers if they complain about a violation of its standards. See 29 U.S.C. §
215(a)(3); Bailey v. Gulf Coast Transp., Inc., 280 F.3d 1333 (11th Cir. 2002);
Centeno-Bernuy v. Perry, 302 F. Supp. 2d 128, 135 (W.D.N.Y. 2003) (noting the
anti-retaliation provision is critical to the entire enforcement scheme of federal
wage and hour law); cf. Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. Locals 14 and 15,
Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs, 438 F. Supp. 876, 879–80 (S.D.N.Y. 1977)
(“witnesses who … are [] retaliated against because of their testimony, are going to
be much less likely to testify in a subsequent proceeding ... if such retaliation goes
unchecked.”). Undocumented workers are protected against immigration-based
retaliation through this anti-retaliation provision.6 See Contreras v. Corinthian

6

The U.S. Department of Labor (“DOL”) has also consistently held that the
substantive protections of the FLSA apply to workers regardless of their
immigration status. See, e.g., U.S. Dep’t. of Labor, Fact Sheet #48: Application of
U.S. Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers: Effect of Hoffman Plastics decision on
laws enforced by the Wage and Hour Division (Revised 2008),
18

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 32 of 106

Vigor Ins. Brokerage, Inc., 103 F. Supp. 2d 1180, 1185 (N.D. Cal. 2000) (holding
employer’s reporting of plaintiff’s undocumented status to federal immigration
officials days after a conference in her unpaid wage claim constituted retaliation);
Singh v. Jutla & C.D. & R's Oil, Inc., 214 F. Supp. 2d 1056, 1059 (N.D. Cal. 2002)
(holding employer’s threat to call immigration authorities unless plaintiff withdrew
his unpaid wage claim stated a claim for retaliation under FLSA). Similarly, courts
have found that immigration-based retaliation against workers is actionable under
Title VII, see, e.g., Equal Emp. Opportunity Comm’n v. The Restaurant Co., 490 F.
Supp. 2d 1039, 1050 (D. Minn. 2007) (finding “even if [plaintiff] is
undocumented, she still has standing to pursue her Title VII claims,” and allowing
her claim of immigration-based retaliation to proceed), and under the NLRA, see,
e.g., AM Property Holding Corp., Maiden 80/90 NY LLC and Media Technology
Centers, 352 NLRB 279, 282 (2008) (finding an employer’s threat to investigate
the immigration status of its employees in retaliation for providing testimony at an
NLRB proceeding was an unfair labor practice).
To ensure IRCA’s employment verification requirements do not
inadvertently undermine these protections, the various federal agencies enforcing

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs48.htm, (See Amici’s App. B for a
true and correct copy); U.S. Dep’t of Labor, News Release, US Department of
Labor statement on ‘We Can Help’ campaign (June 24, 2010),
http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20100890.htm#.UIBV3Wc8r2Q
(See Amici’s App. B).
19

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 33 of 106

the respective statutes have had to strike a deliberate balance in their worksite
enforcement activities. The federal government has adopted an array of
interagency agreements, agency guidance, and interagency protocols to effectuate
and maintain that balance. Two federal policies—the Revised Memorandum of
Understanding between the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor
Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Dec. 7, 2011), (“DHS-DOL
MOU”), http://www.dol.gov/asp/media/reports/DHS-DOL-MOU.pdf, (See Amici’s
App. B), and the ICE Operating Instruction 287.3a, Questioning persons during
labor disputes, (“OI 287.3a”),
http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-053690/0-0-0-61072/0-0-0-61097.html, (See Amici’s App. B) 7—reflect the balance
of national interests that the federal government has struck to ensure that its
worksite immigration enforcement actions do not undermine its enforcement of
labor and employment laws. In the DHS-DOL MOU, the Department of
Homeland Security (“DHS”) and the DOL acknowledge that “effective
enforcement of labor law is essential to ensure proper wages and working
conditions for all covered workers regardless of immigration status.” DHS-DOL
MOU at 1. The MOU reflects the agencies’ shared desire to protect immigrant

7

OI 287.3a, initially adopted in 1996, was re-designated on April 28, 2000 as U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) Special Agent’s Field Manual §
33.14(h).
20

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 34 of 106

workers from employers who would seek to invoke federal immigration
enforcement to chill workers from asserting their workplace rights, including filing
claims with the DOL or participating in DOL investigations. See id. at 2. In
addition, ICE agrees to refrain from initiating civil immigration enforcement
activities at a worksite where DOL is investigating a labor dispute. Id. This
agreement protects DOL’s ability to effectively enforce labor standards by
ensuring access to reliable employee testimony, which is difficult to obtain when
an employee fears that participating in an investigation may result in immigrationrelated consequences.
The DHS-DOL MOU complements ICE’s operational guidance intended to
“protect the Service from unknowingly becoming involved in a labor dispute” and
to prevent federal immigration authorities from being used “to interfere with or to
retaliate against employees for exercising their rights.” OI 287.3a at 1; see also
DHS-DOL MOU at 2 (same); In re Herrera-Priego, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Exec.
Office for Immigration Review, 1, 24 (Lamb, Immigration J., July 10, 2003),
http://www.nilc.org/document.html?id=363 (concluding that OI 287.3a “was
designed to protect fundamental labor rights”) (See Amici’s App. B). OI 287.3a
requires that, whenever information received from any source creates suspicion
that an immigration enforcement action might involve ICE in a labor dispute, “a
reasonable attempt should be made by [Immigration and Naturalization] Service
21

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 35 of 106

enforcement officers to determine whether a labor dispute is in progress.” OI
287.3a at 1. OI 287.3a requires ICE agents to ask specific questions of individuals
providing tips, including whether there is a labor dispute at the worksite in
question, whether the individual is employed by or related to anyone at the
worksite, and whether the workers have complained about any workplace
violations. Id. Where it appears that information may have been provided “in
order to interfere with or retaliate against employees for exercising their rights,” OI
287.3a instructs ICE agents to take no action without higher level approval within
the agency. Id.
In addition to the DHS-DOL MOU and OI 287.3a, ICE has attempted to
protect the ability of immigrant workers to enforce their labor and employment
rights by providing for administrative relief for workers involved in a labor dispute
or otherwise asserting their civil rights. See Memorandum from John Morton,
Director, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Prosecutorial Discretion:
Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs 1 (June 17, 2011), (“Victims’
Memorandum”), http://www.ice.gov/doclib/secure-communities/pdf/domesticviolence.pdf, (See Amici’s App. B).8 The memorandum instructs ICE officers to

8

In addition to the provision of administrative relief in the memorandum, the
DHS-DOL MOU reflects ICE’s agreement to “consider DOL requests that ICE
grant a temporary law enforcement parole or deferred action to any witness needed
for a DOL investigation of a labor dispute . . . and any related proceeding where
such witness is in the country unlawfully.” DHS-DOL MOU at 3.
22

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 36 of 106

give particular consideration to “individuals engaging in a protected activity
related to civil or other rights” and includes, as examples of such activity, “union
organizing or complaining to authorities about employment discrimination” and “a
non-frivolous dispute with an employer.” Id. at 2. In those cases, absent serious
adverse factors, “exercising favorable discretion, such as release from detention
and deferral or a stay of removal generally, will be appropriate.” Id.
Finally, in order to coordinate and manage the complex array of federal
interests implicated by federal enforcement of IRCA’s employment eligibility
verification provisions, the federal government has brought together DHS, DOL,
the Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and
National Labor Relations Board to form the Interagency Working Group for the
Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment, and Immigration Laws.
See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Fact Sheet: Establishment of Interagency Working Group
for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration
Laws, http://www.dol.gov/dol/fact-sheet/immigration/interagency-workinggroup.htm, (See Amici’s App. B) The working group facilitates federal interagency
coordination to “promote workers’ cooperation with labor and employment law
enforcement authorities without fear of retaliation.” Id. To achieve this the
interagency working group aims to “[e]nsure federal enforcement authorities are
not used by parties seeking to undermine worker protection laws by enmeshing
23

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 37 of 106

immigration authorities in labor disputes,” id., by “enhanc[ing] coordination in
those cases where federal responsibilities to enforce labor, employment, and
immigration laws may overlap.” U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Interagency Working Group
for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration
Laws Action Plan 1 (May 8, 2015), http://www.dol.gov/dol/factsheet/immigration/IWGSix-MonthActionPlan.htm, (See Amici’s App. B) The
potential for overlapping “federal responsibilities” underscores the complexity of
the federal interests that are implicated by the enforcement of IRCA and the need
for federal control over the enforcement of sanctions on federal employment
verification fraud to balance the federal government’s array of interests.
Because of this need for federal control, enforcement of Arizona’s identity
theft in employment provisions frustrate the federal government’s ability to
effectuate the careful balancing of interests and enforcement priorities and
techniques described above. Unlike federal immigration officials, Arizona law
enforcement agents and prosecutors are not required to engage in enforcement in a
manner consistent with the DHS-DOL MOU. State officials are not bound to
assess whether their enforcement activities at a worksite could undermine a DOL
investigation, which leads to the potential for immigrant workers being chilled
from participating in the investigation or, if such workers have been the target of
state or local enforcement efforts, may mean they are unavailable to participate in
24

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 38 of 106

the DOL’s investigation effectively. Indeed, the record reflects that MCSO’s
enforcement operations have, in fact, chilled workers from reporting workplace
violations out of a “fear [of] being taken by the Sheriff or having their employer
report them to law enforcement.” 14-ER-3187, Garcia Decl. ¶ 19; see also 14-ER3193, de la Fuente Decl. ¶ 7 (attesting that “the most common reason workers were
reluctant to assert their rights under the labor and employment laws was because
they were concerned about retaliation based on their immigration status.”); 14-ER3196, Romero Decl. ¶ 9 (attesting that “I never complained about not getting paid
overtime . . . because I was afraid my employer would retaliate against me.”). 9
Similarly, the record demonstrates that MCSO’s practice has included
receiving hotline tips and basing enforcement actions on those tips,10 revealing
another problem with allowing state enforcement of the identity theft in
employment provisions. These actors, unlike federal officials, are not required to

9

Further, enforcement of the state identity theft in employment provisions also
potentially subjects the same undocumented workers to state prosecution whom the
federal government has determined should qualify for prosecutorial discretion and
termination of removal proceedings, undermining the federal government’s explicit
policy against “remov[ing] individuals in the midst of a legitimate effort to protect
their civil rights or civil liberties.” Victims’ Memorandum at 2.
10
See Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, News Release: Sheriff Now Investigating
Uncle Sam (July 17, 2013) (noting that the Sheriff’s Office’s 73rd workplace ID
theft operation began “after his office received a tip from a caller”); Phil Benson,
MCSO: 21 workers with fake IDs busted at Maryvale grocery, World Now, Jan.
17, 2013 (stating that the Sheriff’s Office’s 70th “employer’s sanctions raid” began
with a hotline tip from a former employer).
25

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 39 of 106

assess whether the tips received could be motivated by an improper retaliatory
purpose, presenting an obstacle to the federal government’s ability to enforce the
balance between immigration and labor law enforcement reflected in these federal
policies. Indeed, since the MCSO accepts and bases enforcement actions on tips
without any regard to guidance provided under the DHS-DOL MOU and OI
287.3a, savvy employers and managers in Maricopa County can circumvent the
federal safeguards by contacting the MCSO instead of federal immigration
officers. In fact, the record reflects that immigrant workers in Arizona have been
chilled from asserting their workplace rights based on employer threats to “call the
Sheriff” or to “‘send Arpaio’ to arrest them.” 14-ER-3194, de la Fuente Decl. ¶ 9;
see also 14-ER-3187, Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 18-19 (attesting to “instances where bosses,
managers, and supervisors have told workers that if they don’t do certain things,
such as work overtime without pay, their superiors will call the Sheriff or turn
them in.”).
Finally, enforcement of the state identity theft laws undermines the very
point of the interagency working group, which is to coordinate the overlapping
federal responsibilities to enforce labor, employment, and immigration laws. If a
state, in prosecuting individuals for fraud in the employment verification process,
is free to take action at odds with the enforcement policies coordinated and

26

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 40 of 106

implemented by the working group, it obstructs the federal government’s ability to
administer these overlapping “federal responsibilities” effectively.
MCSO’s enforcement of Arizona’s identity theft statutes demonstrates how
state laws permitting independent state workplace enforcement efforts undermine
the federal control necessary to accomplish the objectives that the interagency
working group, the DHS-DOL MOU, OI 287.3a, and the victims’ memorandum
were designed to protect.
III.

Congress Explicitly Subordinated the Federal Interest in Enforcing
the Employment Verification System to the Federal Interest in
Protecting Victims of Trafficking and Certain Other Crimes

Arizona’s identity theft statutes also conflict with federal law and policy
because they allow for prosecution of victims of human trafficking or of certain
other crimes despite Congress’ explicit intent that these individuals be insulated
from penalties for using false identity documents to secure employment. Congress,
through the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000
(“VTVPA”), Pub. L. 106-386, 114 Stat. 1464, provides immigration relief to
undocumented immigrants who have been the victim of human trafficking or of
certain crimes through the provision of T and U visas.11 See generally 8 U.S.C. §§

11

The statute also reflects Congress’ express objectives to encourage law
enforcement officials at the state and local levels to serve immigrant crime victims
more effectively. See Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000,
§ 1513(a)(2)(A), see also 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(U)(iii) (enumerating the
27

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 41 of 106

1101(a)(15)(T), 1101(a)(15)(U).12 There, Congress recognized that absent
additional protections, undocumented victims of trafficking and of certain crimes
face a host of barriers that discourage them from reporting the criminal activity
they have suffered, including “coercion and intimidation” by their traffickers and
“fear [of] retribution and forcible removal to countries in which they will face
retribution or other hardship.” 22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(20).
Congress noted T and U visa relief was needed to allay the fears of
undocumented immigrant crime victims, given that “[e]xisting laws often fail to
protect victims of trafficking, and because victims are often illegal immigrants in
the destination country, they are repeatedly punished more harshly than the
traffickers themselves.” 22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(17). In light of these particular
vulnerabilities, Congress determined that trafficking victims should not be
penalized for certain potentially unlawful acts: “Victims of severe forms of
trafficking should not be inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise
penalized solely for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked,
such as using false documents, entering the country without documentation, or

qualifying criminal activity “in violation of Federal, State, or local criminal law”
that provides the predicate for U visa relief) (emphasis added).
12
The VTVPA provides eligible victims of trafficking and certain other crimes
with protection from removal and four years of nonimmigrant legal status and the
ability, after three years of continuous presence in the U.S., to apply for lawful
permanent residency and, ultimately, for U.S. citizenship. See 8 U.S.C. §§
1101(a)(15)(T), 1255(l), 1101(a)(15)(U), 1255(m), 1427.
28

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 42 of 106

working without documentation.” 22 U.S.C. § 7101(b)(19) (emphasis added).
Similarly, the adjustment of status process for an individual in T or U
nonimmigrant status to become a lawful permanent resident is exempted from
provisions of the INA that would render an individual ineligible to adjust her status
based upon prior unauthorized employment. Compare 8 U.S.C. § 1255(c)(8) with
§ 1255(l) and § 1255(m).
Thus, the VTVPA demonstrates Congress’ intent that, in certain cases,
federal humanitarian and public safety interests take precedence over enforcement
of employment verification laws. See Victims of Trafficking and Violence
Protection Act of 2000, § 1513(a)(2)(A) (stating this relief was “in keeping with
the humanitarian interests of the United States.”); § 1513(a)(1)(B) (intent of statute
to strengthen the ability of undocumented crime victims “to report . . . crimes to
law enforcement and fully participate in the investigation of the crimes committed
against them.”); § 1513(a)(2)(A) (describing Congress’ intent in creating the U
visa to “encourage law enforcement officials to better serve immigrant crime
victims and to prosecute crimes committed against aliens.”); see also 22 U.S.C. §
7101(a) (noting the T visa was created in order to “combat trafficking in persons . .
. and to protect their victims.”).
Enforcement of state identity theft in employment provisions conflicts with
the federal enforcement priorities established by the VTVPA because it could
29

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 43 of 106

subject an undocumented worker who has been the victim of trafficking to state
prosecution for using documents that are not her own, directly conflicting with
Congress’ express intent to protect victims of trafficking from punishment for
“using false documents.” 22 U.S.C § 7101(b)(19). Here, Arizona’s state identity
theft statutes contain no provision to determine whether individuals may have been
the victims of trafficking or other criminal activity. Indeed, MCSO’s systematic
enforcement of the state identity theft laws against immigrant workers, unmoored
from the federal interests in protecting immigrant trafficking and crime victims,
has resulted in a chilling effect that undermines the ability of MCSO to serve
immigrant crime victims effectively, which, in turn, undermines the ability of
MCSO to identify and prosecute crimes committed against immigrants.13
//
//
//

13

This chilling effect on the willingness of undocumented individuals to report
crimes to the MCSO includes certain crimes, such as peonage, involuntary
servitude, and trafficking, that most often arise in an employment context and
which provide the predicate qualifying criminal activity for a U visa. See 8 U.S.C.
§ 1101(a)(15)(U)(iii) (listing qualifying criminal activity); see also 14-ER-3187,
Garcia Decl. ¶¶ 18-19 (attesting to the chilling effect that MCSO’s enforcement
has had on immigrant workers’ willingness to report workplace violations out of
fear of being taken by the Sheriff); 14-ER-3193-94, de la Fuente Decl. ¶¶ 7-9
(same).
30

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 44 of 106

CONCLUSION
For the reasons in Appellees’ brief and the reasons above, Amici respectfully
request that this Court uphold the injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13-2008(A) and 132009(A)(3).

Date: August 31, 2015

Respectfully Submitted,
NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER

/s Joshua T. Stehlik
Joshua T. Stehlik, SBN 220241
Nicholas D. Espiritu, SBN 237665
3435 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
stehlik@nilc.org
espiritu@nilc.org
Telephone: 213.639.3900
Facsimile: 213.639.3911
Counsel for Amicus Curiae

31

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 45 of 106

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 32(a)
This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of FED. R. APP. P.
29(d) and 32(a)(7)(B), because this brief contains 6,994 words excluding the parts
of the brief exempted by FED. R. APP. P. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii).
This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Rule 32(a)(5) and the
type style requirements of Rule 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a
proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in 14-point Times New
Roman font.
STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
Amici are not aware of any related cases pending in this Court.

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Date: August 31, 2015

/s Joshua T. Stehlik
Joshua T. Stehlik

32

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 46 of 106

APPENDIX A
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 29(c) and 26.1, Amici
are each non-profit organizations, with no parent corporations or publicly traded
stock and provide the following:
The National Immigration Law Center (“NILC”) is the primary national
organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing
the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their families. Over the
past 35 years, NILC has won landmark legal decisions protecting fundamental
rights, and advanced policies that reinforce our nation’s values of equality,
opportunity, and justice. NILC’s interest in the outcome of this case arises from its
first-hand experience with the ways that immigration-based retaliation against
workers chills them from asserting their workplace rights, which, in turn, erodes
workplace standards for all workers.
Advocates for Basic Legal Equality, Inc. (“ABLE”) is an unrestricted
legal services program that provides representation to low-income groups and
individuals. One of its practice groups, the Agricultural Worker and Immigrant
Rights Practice Group, has litigated a number of lawsuits on behalf of immigrants
and groups with large numbers of immigrant members, including the Ohio
Immigrant Worker Project and the Farm Labor Organizing Committee, AFL-CIO.
This litigation has included employment, immigration and civil rights issues,
33

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 47 of 106

including wage and working conditions claims, sexual harassment claims, profiling
of Hispanics by local, state and federal law enforcement agencies, issuance of
marriage licenses to persons without Social Security numbers, and filing habeas
corpus petitions for detained immigrants.
The Arizona Border Rights Foundation (DBA) Coalición de Derechos
Humanos (“DH”), based in Tucson, Arizona, is a grassroots organization which
promotes respect for human/civil rights and fights the militarization of the
Southern Border region, discrimination, and human rights abuses by federal, state,
and local law enforcement officials affecting U.S. and non U.S. citizens alike. The
Arizona identity theft laws and their enforcement apparatus have used the criminal
justice system to target workers based on their immigration status, a function that
is wholly a federal responsibility. Our community has faced hundreds of criminal
convictions, incarcerations and the collateral consequences from these policies.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice - Asian Law Caucus (“Advancing
Justice - ALC”) was founded in 1972 with a mission to promote, advance, and
represent the legal and civil rights of Asian and Pacific Islanders, with a particular
focus on low-income members of those communities. Advancing Justice - ALC is
part of a national affiliation of Asian American civil rights groups, with offices in
Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington DC, and Atlanta. Advancing Justice - ALC
has a long history of protecting low-wage immigrant workers through direct legal
34

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 48 of 106

services, impact litigation, community education, and policy work. Advancing
Justice - ALC's regular docket includes retaliation cases and advocacy on behalf of
undocumented workers.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice – Los Angeles (“Advancing Justice
– LA”), formerly the Asian Pacific American Legal Center, is the nation’s largest
legal and civil rights organization for Asian Americans, Native Hawaiians, and
Pacific Islanders. Founded in 1983, Advancing Justice – LA has had a long history
of promoting immigrants’ and workers’ rights through policy initiatives and
lawsuits, including a successful lawsuit against employers who trafficked and
forced 80 Thai garment workers to work behind barbed wire and under armed
guard in El Monte, California. Bureerong v. Uvawas, 922 F. Supp. 1450 (C.D. Cal.
1996), and 959 F. Supp. 1231 (C.D. Cal. 1997). Advancing Justice - LA continues
to represent low-wage, immigrant workers with employment discrimination,
trafficking, and wage & hour claims, and thus, has a strong interest in the outcome
of this case to ensure that workers are not chilled from asserting their rights.
The California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation (“CRLAF”) is a nonprofit legal services provider that advocates for the rural poor and promotes the
interests of low-wage workers, particularly farm workers. Since 1986, CRLAF has
engaged in impact litigation, community education and outreach, and legislative
and administrative advocacy in the areas of labor, housing education, health,
35

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 49 of 106

worker safety, pesticides, citizenship, immigration, and environmental justice. A
high percentage of CRLAF’s clients are unauthorized workers, many of whom are
eligible for relief from deportation and may be able to regulate their immigration
status with our help. Many are members of mixed status families, where the
children’s well-being can be dependent on careful review and adjustment of their
parents’ status through the federal immigration system. CRLAF attorneys and
staff are acutely of the devastating impact a state enforcement scheme that operates
outside federal control and without concern for workforce protection,
humanitarian, and law enforcement interests can have on such individuals and their
families.
Casa Latina is a nonprofit, social justice organization founded in 1994 that
empowers low-wage Latino immigrant workers with educational and employment
opportunities to move from economic insecurity to economic prosperity and to
participate fully in our democracy. These opportunities include day labor
employment through Casa Latina’s worker center, English language classes,
workplace safety and job skills trainings, leadership development, and organizing
around issues of public policy that affect immigrant workers. In addition to directly
serving the Latino community in King County, Casa Latina has national impact as
a model day worker center whose programs, curricula, and operations have been
emulated by worker centers throughout the country. Casa Latina fights hard for
36

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 50 of 106

workers to have livable wages and dignified lives and opposes immigration-based
retaliation practices that diminish the rights of workers and create conditions of
abuse and exploitation.
The Center for Neighborhood Leadership of Phoenix, Arizona, is an
anchor organization that is shifting the landscape of social justice, community
development, and community-driven public policy by training under-represented,
low-income Arizonans to engage stakeholders in meaningful dialogue, form
collaborative partnerships, and take action to address local issues. Sheriff Arpaio's
racially biased, predatory, and unlawful use of state identity theft laws has
victimized our families, volunteers, members, and the community at large. Center
for Neighborhood Leadership's volunteers and their family members have been
targeted, arrested, jailed, and deported as a result of Sheriff Arpaio's workplace
raids. Those unlawful actions against immigrant workers have had devastating
repercussions on families including, homelessness, hunger, and the endless
heartache of family separation. Moreover, Sheriff Arpaio has created a widespread
culture of fear of the police and crime reporting that further terrorizes victims of
crime as well as undermines the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office's mandate to
protect and serve our community.
Central Arizonans for a Sustainable Economy (“CASE”), based in
Phoenix, Arizona, is committed to quality jobs and fair working conditions for all
37

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 51 of 106

Arizonans. The use of state identity theft laws to criminally prosecute immigrant
workers for "misusing identity information in order to obtain employment" creates
an additional tool employers can use to intimidate and exploit their employees.
Holding the threat of deportation and identity theft prosecution over the heads of
workers those very employers brought into their company to complete important
tasks is a tactic we see all too often, and one that needs to stop. The Maricopa
County Sheriff's Office should not be twisting statutes for the purpose of pursuing
workers whose only wish is to be able to provide for their families.
Centro Legal de la Raza (“Centro Legal”) has, since 1969, provided legal
aid services to low-income, predominantly Spanish-speaking residents of
Oakland's Fruitvale District and the greater Bay Area. Centro Legal represents
thousands of workers, tenants, and immigrants annually. Centro Legal works to
protect the legal rights of all workers, regardless of their immigration status.
Immigrant workers are especially vulnerable to employer abuse, and in the
previous two years Centro Legal has recovered for workers over one million
dollars in stolen wages. The outcome of this case is important to our clients
because employers too often unlawfully take advantage of immigrant workers who
are afraid to assert their rights, and protections are needed to prevent such
exploitation.

38

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 52 of 106

Farmworker Justice is a non-profit organization based in Washington,
D.C. that seeks to empower migrant and seasonal farmworkers to improve their
living and working conditions, immigration status, health, occupational safety, and
access to justice. Farmworker Justice accomplishes these aims through policy
advocacy, litigation, training and technical assistance, coalition-building, public
education, support for union organization and corporate social responsibility. The
nation’s roughly 2.5 million seasonal agricultural workers are among the lowestpaid and exploited employees in the nation. Farmworker Justice participates in this
case due to its strong interest in preventing conflicting laws and practices from
undermining the few workers’ protections that are currently available from
employer intimidation and harassment.
The Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project (“Florence Project”)
is the only non-profit organization that provides free legal assistance and
coordinated social services to women, men, and unaccompanied children detained
for immigration proceedings in Arizona. The Florence Project seeks to ensure that
all immigrants facing removal have access to counsel, understand their rights under
the law, and are treated fairly and humanely. The Florence Project believes in
defending the civil rights of immigrants in Arizona, thus our interest in this case.
Since 1920, Friendly House has served the citizens of Arizona and those
seeking a legal path to citizenship, by providing the tools, training and support
39

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 53 of 106

needed to attain sustaining, self-sufficiency. Through this work, Friendly House
has seen first-hand and is concerned with the barriers potential citizens face in
establishing residency and a pathway to citizenship.
Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota (“ILCM”) is a Minnesota based
non-profit organization that engages in advocacy, direct services, education,
outreach, and impact litigation to protect the civil and human rights of noncitizens.
ILCM represents noncitizens throughout Minnesota in removal proceedings before
immigration courts, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and in the federal courts.
ILCM routinely represents noncitizens with criminal convictions and receives state
funding to provide technical assistance and training on the immigration
consequences of criminal convictions to Minnesota's public defenders so that
noncitizens receive effective assistance of counsel in their criminal proceedings.
ILCM has a strong interest in the fair, predictable, and correct interpretation of the
criminal and immigration laws in the United States.
The Immigration Law Clinic of the University of Arizona James E.
Rogers College of Law (“Clinic”) provides free legal services to low income
immigrants. The Clinic also provides a clinical legal education for law students
enrolled in the program. Student participants, under attorney supervision, provide
direct representation to a limited number of immigrants each semester, including
respondents undergoing removal proceedings at an immigration detention center in
40

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 54 of 106

Eloy, Arizona, some of whom are Maricopa County residents. The Clinic's clients
include actual or potential asylum seekers, victims of severe forms of human
trafficking, survivors of domestic violence and other crimes, individuals potentially
eligible to immigrate through petitions filed by U.S. citizen or permanent resident
family members, long-term residents of the U.S. eligible for humanitarian waivers
of removal, and individuals who may be subject to removal but qualify for
prosecutorial discretion. The Clinic has a direct interest in the outcome of this case
because, depending the circumstances of the case, a criminal conviction may
render an individual ineligible for certain immigration benefits or may create
hurdles to obtaining such benefits.
Jobs With Justice is a national network bringing together labor,
community, student, and faith at the national and local levels to fight for
employment security and a decent standard of living for workers. Our interest in
supporting the plaintiff in this case stems from our experience supporting workers
who find themselves at the nexus of immigration and workplace laws. We have
seen the imperative need to balance immigration enforcement with the
enforcement of labor and employment laws. We believe this balance is best
achieved through federal policies and practices.
Jobs with Justice, Tucson Chapter, is one of 26 local coalitions that are
part of the national Jobs with Justice organization. Being in a city that is the sixth
41

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 55 of 106

poorest in the nation and living in a state with the Right to Work laws since 1947,
combined with an unrelenting attack on immigrants, is a formula for disaster for all
who toil in this area. The further criminalization of immigrant workers through the
unjust and added burden of identity theft is simply and painfully another tool used
by racist exploiters of labor to depress the overall wages of everyone. In the
struggle for economic and social justice it is absolutely imperative to peel away the
legal hindrances that keep working people poor and oppressed.
The Legal Aid Society–Employment Law Center (“LAS-ELC”) is a
nonprofit legal services organization, founded in 1916, that litigates cases
nationwide on behalf of low-wage workers, particularly those who belong to
traditionally subordinated communities. Through its Immigration and National
Origin Program, LAS-ELC endeavors to protect the rights of individuals who face
discrimination because they belong to a particular ethnic community, or because
they or their ancestors immigrated to the United States. As part of this work, LASELC has litigated numerous cases vindicating the ability of workers to protect their
legal rights irrespective of their immigration status and despite the prospect of
employer retaliation. LAS-ELC has a deep interest in the outcome of the present
case, because a finding that that IRCA does not preempt the laws and practices at
issue would frustrate the strong federal policy in favor of the vigorous enforcement
of workplace protections that IRCA, in fact, embodied.
42

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 56 of 106

Living United for Change in Arizona (LUCHA) organizes Arizona’s lowand moderate-income and minority families to take action on the issues most
important to them and advance the cause of social and economic justice for all.
Through leadership development, grassroots issue-based campaigns, advocacy and
civic engagement, we seek to create an Arizona in which every resident has an
equal voice in determining the policies and shaping the decision-making bodies
that will govern our communal life. LUCHA organizes a very diverse constituency
or workers and immigrants. Our workers face daily issues such as wage theft,
being underpaid, overworked with little to no sick days, and work place raids.
Immigration is another issue that has affected our constituency through the most
heinous discrimination practices, as exemplified by Arizona’s SB1070. SB1070
brought work place raids, home raids, police profiling of minorities, family
separation and detention. Thousands of immigrant families left our state,
construction, fast food and hospitality sectors being directly affected by the mass
exodus of families, workers and students. Currently, we still see the effects of
SB1070 and racial profiling as many of our members have family members that
have been detained or deported due to the predatory and discriminatory practices
of Sheriff Arpaio.
The National Employment Law Project (NELP) has worked for nearly 45
years to advance the workplace rights of low-wage and immigrant workers. Both
43

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 57 of 106

directly and through its partnerships with community groups, civil rights groups
and worker organizations, NELP has represented thousands of immigrant workers
attempting to enforce their labor rights. NELP attorneys have written, lectured,
litigated, and engaged in policy advocacy on behalf of low-wage immigrant
workers throughout the United States.
The New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice is a non-profit
membership organization that was founded in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina
in response to the structural exclusion of African Americans and the brutal
exploitation of immigrants across the Gulf Coast South. The organization has over
1,000 members spanning across the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas—
including day laborers, temporary guestworkers, and African American residents who work collectively towards workers’ rights, racial equality and human dignity
for all.
The North Carolina Justice Center's core mission is to advance economic
and social justice for low-income and marginalized individuals and communities
across North Carolina. To make opportunity and prosperity for all a reality, we
work to secure jobs that are safe and pay a living wage; access to quality health
care; consumer protections from abusive business practices; quality education for
every child; safe and affordable housing; and fair treatment, regardless of race,
ethnicity, or country of origin. The Center’s work includes a special focus on
44

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 58 of 106

representation of North Carolina’s low-income immigrants. Since its inception in
1996, the Justice Center has successfully helped thousands of individuals avoid
deportation, keep their families together and obtain legal status. We have also
defended the rights of immigrants facing abuses in housing, consumer and
workplace cases, and have secured access to services and public benefits. We have
engaged immigrant allies in the fight for fairer policies at both the state and federal
level.
The Service Employees International Union (“SEIU”) is an international
labor organization representing approximately two million working men and
women in the United States and Canada employed in the private and public
sectors. Many of SEIU’s members are foreign-born U.S. citizens, lawful
permanent residents, or immigrants authorized to work in the United States. Many
of SEIU’s members have mixed-status families. SEIU and its members have an
interest in Arizona's two identity theft in employment statutes as they undermine
federal labor and employment protections.
Somos America / We Are America is a non-profit organization composed
of organizations and individuals whose work encompasses issues affecting migrant
communities. Through the collaborative efforts of our members, Somos America
acts as an educational center for migrant rights organizations and a place for
coordinated action to ensure the realization of our vision.
45

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 59 of 106

The Southside Worker Center, based in Tucson, Arizona, supports a
community of worker-leaders building collective power and raising the standards
of worker conditions so that members can take part in dignified work and earn just
wages. The Center sees approximately 35 workers daily, who, in spite of the
hostile conditions in Arizona, continue to maintain that they too have a right to
work by gathering at the Center. Along with offering a space for workers to wait
for work, we also focus on empowering the leadership of the workers through a
variety of leadership trainings, shared decision making, and by maintaining the
Center as a worker-led organization. Our members are day laborers mostly from
Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, and Nicaragua.
UNITE HERE is a labor union that represents 270,000 women and men
across North America working in the hotel, gaming, food service, manufacturing,
textile, distribution, laundry, transportation, and airport industries. In the State of
Arizona, UNITE HERE’s local affiliate (Local 631) represents workers in hotels,
restaurants, airport concessions, and in-flight catering. UNITE HERE and its
member locals are committed to the rights of immigrant workers, who make up a
substantial percentage of the workforce within the industries the union
represents. UNITE HERE also actively assists non-unionized workers, including
immigrant workers, in asserting their rights under federal law to organize for
improved wages and working conditions.
46

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 60 of 106

The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union
(“UFCW”) represents more than 1.3 million workers in the United States and
Canada, primarily in retail, meatpacking, poultry, and food processing industries.
UFCW’s mission is to better the terms and conditions of employment of all
workers it represents and thereby better the lives of their families and communities.
In implementing its mission, UFCW organizes and represents workers from around
the world who comprise a range of races and ethnicities. UFCW believes that all
workers deserve the rights granted by U.S. federal laws. In particular, UFCW
believes that the federal rights of immigrants must be protected so that they can
contribute to their communities and our entire nation, as they have done for
centuries. Accordingly, UFCW has an interest in promoting laws and policies that
protect immigrant rights, and UFCW will fight against all forms of discrimination
against immigrant workers.
Based in Tucson, Arizona, the Workers’ Rights Clinic of the University
of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (“WRC”) advocates for the rights
of low-wage immigrant workers through direct service, public policy research, and
community education and outreach. WRC operates an in-house employment rights
clinic where workers receive confidential legal information, advice, and counseling
about their rights in the workplace from trained law students and supervising

47

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 61 of 106

attorneys. WRC has an interest in this case because of its commitment to
protecting the rights of low-wage immigrant workers in the state.
Worksafe, Inc. is a California-based non-profit organization dedicated to
promoting occupational safety and health through education, training, and
advocacy. Worksafe advocates for protective worker health and safety laws and
effective remedies for injured workers through the legislature and courts. Worksafe
is also a Legal Support Center funded by the State Bar Legal Services Trust Fund
Program to provide advocacy, technical and legal assistance, and training to the
legal services projects throughout California that directly serve California's most
vulnerable low-wage workers. Worksafe has an interest in the outcome of this
case as it relates to access to justice issues of low-income immigrant workers.

48

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 62 of 106

APPENDIX B
INDEX OF APPENDIX B
Description

Appendix B Page.
No.

ICE Operating Instruction 287.3a, Questioning persons
during labor disputes
51
Memorandum from John Morton, Director, U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Prosecutorial
Discretion: Certain Victims, Witnesses, and Plaintiffs
(June 17, 2011)
Revised Memorandum of Understanding between the
Departments of Homeland Security and Labor Concerning
Enforcement Activities at Worksites (Dec. 7, 2011)
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Fact Sheet: Establishment of
Interagency Working Group for the Consistent
Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and
Immigration Laws

53

56

61

U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Interagency Working Group for the
Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment
and Immigration Laws Action Plan (May 8, 2015)
63
U.S. Dep’t of Labor, News Release, US Department of
Labor statement on ‘We Can Help’ campaign (June 24,
2010)

65

U.S. Dep’t. of Labor, Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S.
Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers: Effect of Hoffman
Plastics decision on laws enforced by the Wage and Hour
Division (Revised 2008)
66
49

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 63 of 106

In re Herrera-Priego, U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Exec. Office
for Immigration Review (July 10, 2003)

50

68

8/28/2015

OI 287.3a Questioning persons during labor disputes. (Revised 12/04/96; Added to INSERTS April 99)
Case: 15-15211,
08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 64 of 106

\ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ Operating Instructions \ OI 287 Field officers; powers and
duties. \ OI 287.3a Questioning persons during labor disputes. (Revised 12/04/96; Added to
INSERTS April 99)
Previous Document  Next Document

OI 287.3a Questioning persons during labor disputes. (Revised 12/04/96; Added to
INSERTS April 99) 
    When information is received concerning the employment of undocumented or unauthorized aliens,
consideration should be given to whether the information is being provided to interfere with the rights
of employees to form, join or assist labor organizations or to exercise their rights not to do so; to be
paid minimum wages and overtime; to have safe work places; to receive compensation for work
related injuries; to be free from discrimination based on race, gender, age, national origin, religion,
handicap; or to retaliate against employees for seeking to vindicate these rights. 
    Whenever information received from any source creates a suspicion that an INS enforcement
action might involve the Service in a labor dispute, a reasonable attempt should be made by Service
enforcement officers to determine whether a labor dispute is in progress. The Information Officer at
the Regional Office of the National Labor Relations Board can supply status information on unfair
labor practice charges or union election or decertification petitions that are pending involving most
private sector, non­ agricultural employers. Wage and hour information can be obtained from the
United States Department of Labor (Wage and Hour Division) or the state labor department. 
    In order to protect the Service from unknowingly becoming involved in a labor dispute, persons
who provide information to the Service about the employer or employees involved in the dispute
should be asked the following: 1) their names; 2) whether there is a labor dispute in progress at the
worksite; 3) whether they are or were employed at the worksite in question (or by a union
representing workers at the worksite); and 4) if applicable, whether they are or were employed in a
supervisory or managerial capa city or related to anyone who is. Information should be obtained
concerning how they came to know that the subjects lacked legal authorization to work, as well as the
source and reliability of their information concerning the aliens= status. 
    It is also appropriate to inquire whether the persons who provide the information had or have a
dispute with the employer of the subjects of the information. Likewise, the person providing the
information about the aliens should be asked if the subjects of the information have raised complaints
or grievances about hours or working conditions, discriminatory practices or about union
representation or actions, or whether they have filed workers' compensation claims. 
    Generally there is no prohibition for enforcing the Immigration and Nationality Act, even when there
may be a labor dispute in progress. However, where it appears that information may have been
provided in order to interfere with or to retaliate against employees for exercising their rights, no
action should be taken on this information without the review of the District Counsel and approval of
the Assistant District Director for Investigations or an Assistant Chief Patrol Agent. 
    When Service enforcement action is taken and it is then determined that there was a labor dispute
in progress, or that the information was provided to the Service to retaliate against employees for
exercising their employment rights, the lead immigration officer in charge of the Service enforcement
team at the worksite must ensure to the extent possible that any arrested or detained aliens
necessary for the prosecution of any violations are not removed from the country without notifying the
appropriate law enforcement agency which has jurisdiction over these violations. 
    Any arrangements for aliens to be held or to be interviewed by investigators or attorneys for the
state or federal Department of Labor, the National Labor Relations board or other agencies/entities

51

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0­0­0­1/0­0­0­53690/0­0­0­61072/0­0­0­61097.html?topic_id=0

1/2

8/28/2015

OI 287.3a Questioning persons during labor disputes. (Revised 12/04/96; Added to INSERTS April 99)
Case: 15-15211,
08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 65 of 106
enforcing labor/employment laws will be determined on a case­by­case basis.

\ slb \ SERVICE LAW BOOKS MENU \ Operating Instructions \ OI 287 Field officers; powers and
duties. \ OI 287.3a Questioning persons during labor disputes. (Revised 12/04/96; Added to
INSERTS April 99)
Previous Document  Next Document

52

http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0­0­0­1/0­0­0­53690/0­0­0­61072/0­0­0­61097.html?topic_id=0

2/2

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 66 of 106

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 67 of 106

54

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 68 of 106

55

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 69 of 106

56

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 70 of 106

57

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 71 of 106

58

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 72 of 106

59

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 73 of 106

60

8/28/2015 Fact Sheet: Establishment of Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws ­ U.S. De…
Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 74 of 106

United States Department of Labor
Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez
Fact Sheet: Establishment of Interagency Working
Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor,
Employment and Immigration Laws
Federal agencies responsible for worker protections seek to protect all workers from exploitation and workers’
rights violations, regardless of immigration status.  Many workers, however, are deterred or prevented from
asserting workplace rights and protections.  In some cases, employers may exploit immigration status to deter
employees from asserting their rights.  In other cases, the protections available to workers are unclear.  To
promote effective enforcement of federal labor, employment, and immigration laws, the Administration is
announcing the creation of an interagency working group to identify policies and procedures that promote the
consistent enforcement of those laws and protect all workers in the U.S.
This working group will be comprised of federal immigration enforcement agencies and federal agencies
responsible for worker protections, including the Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security,
Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and National Labor Relations Board.
The working group will seek to:
Ensure agencies’ immigration enforcement and worker protection policies, promote workers’ cooperation with
labor and employment law enforcement authorities without fear of retaliation;
Ensure federal enforcement authorities are not used by parties seeking to undermine worker protection laws
by enmeshing immigration authorities in labor disputes; and,
Ensure the consistent enforcement of federal labor, employment, and immigration laws.
To achieve these objectives the working group will:
Develop policies and procedures to ensure consistent enforcement of labor, employment, and immigration
laws;
Develop consistent standards and procedures for immigration agencies to contact labor agencies when they
encounter a potential labor dispute within the meaning of the Revised Memorandum of Understanding
between the Departments of Homeland Security and Labor Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites,
executed on December 7, 2011;
Provide greater clarity to workers, worker representatives, advocates, and employers regarding processes and
procedures on the intersection between immigration law enforcement and labor and employment law
enforcement;
Strengthen processes for staying the removal of, and providing temporary work authorization for,
undocumented workers asserting workplace claims and for cases in which a workplace investigation or
proceeding is ongoing; and
Provide stakeholders open and transparent modes of communication with enforcement authorities.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/fact­sheet/immigration/interagency­working­group.htm

61

1/2

8/28/2015 Fact Sheet: Establishment of Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws ­ U.S. De…
Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 75 of 106

The working group will provide opportunities for communication with external stakeholders, including workers,
worker representatives, advocates and employers as appropriate.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/fact­sheet/immigration/interagency­working­group.htm

62

2/2

8/28/2015

Fact Sheet: Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws Action Plan ­ U.S. Depart…
Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 76 of 106

United States Department of Labor
Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez
Interagency Working Group for the Consistent
Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and
Immigration Laws Action Plan
On November 20, 2014, the federal government announced the formation of the Interagency Working Group for
the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws (Interagency Working Group),
comprised of the Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and National Labor Relations Board. This Interagency Working Group
builds on the existing relationships between the member departments and agencies and agreements such as the
Department of Labor and the Department of Homeland Security's Revised Memorandum of Understanding
Concerning Enforcement Activities at Worksites (2011).
The Interagency Working Group's goals are to enhance coordination in those cases where federal responsibilities
to enforce labor, employment, and immigration laws may overlap, to ensure that workers who cooperate with
labor and employment enforcement may continue to do so without fear of retaliation, to ensure that
unscrupulous parties do not attempt to misuse immigration enforcement or labor laws to thwart or manipulate
worker protections or labor and immigration enforcement, and to ensure the effective enforcement of these laws.
To achieve these goals, the Interagency Working Group commits to pursuing the following tasks:
Identify and recommend, as needed, policies and procedures that ensure effective enforcement of labor,
employment, and immigration laws and prevent the abuse of the legal process to undermine that
enforcement;
Develop consistent internal standards and procedures for agencies to resolve conflicts regarding ongoing civil
investigations into the violation of immigration and labor laws;
Provide greater clarity to workers, worker representatives, advocates, employers and federal agencies
regarding processes and procedures when immigration law enforcement and labor and employment law
enforcement intersect;
Review existing processes for staying the removal of certain undocumented workers who assert meritorious
workplace claims, providing access to apply for temporary employment authorization when consistent with
regulations and policy, and establishing interagency coordination to facilitate these actions in appropriate
cases; and
Provide open and transparent modes of communication between enforcement authorities and external
stakeholders, including workers, worker representatives, advocates and employers, as appropriate.
Within six months of the issuance of this Action Plan, the Interagency Working Group will have initiated or
completed the following steps:
Establish regular meetings of the Interagency Working Group to ensure closer coordination, and a strong
network of contacts across departments and agencies that will convene throughout the implementation of
this Action Plan and continue thereafter for as long as the Interagency Working Group deems necessary.
Produce a coordinated set of resources on Workplace Protections and Immigration Enforcement. These
http://www.dol.gov/dol/fact­sheet/immigration/IWGSix­MonthActionPlan.htm

63

1/2

8/28/2015

Fact Sheet: Interagency Working Group for the Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws Action Plan ­ U.S. Depart…
Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 77 of 106

resources, which may be made available as a handbook, online, or in other formats deemed easily accessible
to the public, will include:
A compilation of relevant agreements between Interagency Working Group members, as well as appropriate
agency guidance on the intersection between immigration law enforcement and labor and employment law
enforcement that presently exists or may be created as part of this Action Plan;
Clear explanations and methods for accessing any temporary or permanent immigration benefits or relief
that may be available as the result of workplace violations or criminal activity in the workplace. This will
include information on how to seek a stay of deportation or removal, significant public benefit or
humanitarian parole, deferred action, and other exercises of prosecutorial discretion. This will also include
information on how to obtain employment authorization, if available;
Clear guidance to employers on avoiding retaliation and explaining their obligations to workers in the case
of a workplace dispute, including guidance on avoiding discrimination when conducting an internal
Employment Eligibility Verification Form I­9 Audit; and
Instructions on ways for the public to engage the Interagency Working Group and its members with related
inquiries.
Facilitate formal communication and processes among Interagency Working Group members. In particular,
the Interagency Working Group will identify procedures to ensure the respective civil authorities of its
members do not conflict. Interagency Working Group Members also agree to explore development of
potential agreements or other procedures as appropriate.
Maintain a robust dialogue with stakeholders, including workers, worker representatives, advocates, and
employers as appropriate, through public engagement.
Engage other federal or state agencies and officials on an ad hoc basis as necessary to achieve articulated
goals and objectives.

http://www.dol.gov/dol/fact­sheet/immigration/IWGSix­MonthActionPlan.htm

64

2/2

8/28/2015

WHD News Release: US Department of Labor statement on ‘We Can Help’ campaign [06/24/2010]
Case: 15-15211,
08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 78 of 106

United States Department of Labor
Secretary of Labor Thomas E. Perez
News Release
WHD News Release: [06/24/2010]
Contact Name: Dolline Hatchett
Phone Number: (202) 693­4667
Release Number: 10­0890­NAT

US Department of Labor statement on ‘We Can Help’ campaign
WASHINGTON — In response to questions regarding the U.S. Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division's
"We Can Help" campaign — an effort to educate workers across the United States of their rights under the law —
the department today issued the following statement:
"Through Democratic and Republican administrations, the Department of Labor consistently has held that the
country's minimum wage and overtime law protects workers regardless of their immigration status. To argue
otherwise diminishes the value of work in this country.
"This position provides two very important protections. First, it ensures that U.S. workers have a level playing
field when seeking employment. Consider the lost advantage to U.S. workers when unscrupulous employers
purposely pass them over to hire workers who are afraid to file a complaint about not being paid the minimum
wage or often not being paid at all.
"Second, no employer should gain an economic edge by hiring undocumented individuals who feel that they
must accept working conditions below those required by law. Good employers, who abide by the law, should not
suffer the consequences of those businesses engaged in a race to the bottom."
For more information on the "We Can Help" campaign, visit http://www.dol.gov/wecanhelp.

http://www.dol.gov/opa/media/press/whd/WHD20100890.htm#.UIBV3Wc8r2Q

65

1/1

8/28/2015

Case: 15-15211,U.S. Department of Labor ­ Wage and Hour Division (WHD) ­ Fact Sheet
08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 79 of 106

United States Department of Labor
Wage and Hour Division
Wage and Hour Division (WHD)
(Revised July 2008) (PDF)

Fact Sheet #48: Application of U.S. Labor Laws to Immigrant Workers: Effect of
Hoffman Plastics decision on laws enforced by the Wage and Hour Division
On March 27, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, No. 00­
1595 (S. Ct.), that the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) lacked authority to order back pay to an
undocumented worker who was laid off from his job because of union activities.
In Hoffman Plastics, the Supreme Court decided that providing back pay to the undocumented worker would
conflict with policies under U.S. immigration laws. Those laws require employees to present documents
establishing their identity and authorization to work at the time they are hired. An employer must check those
documents and cannot knowingly hire someone who is not authorized to work. In Hoffman Plastics, the
employee presented false documentation when he was hired. He was later laid off for trying to organize a union,
in violation of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The NLRB sought back pay for a period of time after the
layoff. The Supreme Court concluded that back pay should not be awarded "for years of work not performed, for
wages that could not lawfully have been earned, and for a job obtained in the first instance by a criminal fraud."
The Supreme Court's decision does not mean that undocumented workers do not have rights under other U.S.
labor laws. In Hoffman Plastics, the Supreme Court interpreted only one law, the NLRA. The Department of
Labor does not enforce that law. The Supreme Court did not address laws the Department of Labor enforces,
such as the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act
(MSPA), that provide core labor protections for vulnerable workers. The FLSA requires employers to pay covered
employees a minimum wage and, in general, time and a half an employee's regular rate of pay for overtime
hours. The MSPA requires employers and farm labor contractors to pay the wages owed to migrant or seasonal
agricultural workers when the payments are due.
The Department's Wage and Hour Division will continue to enforce the FLSA and MSPA without regard to
whether an employee is documented or undocumented. Enforcement of these laws is distinguishable from
ordering back pay under the NLRA. In Hoffman Plastics, the NLRB sought back pay for time an employee
would have worked if he had not been illegally discharged, under a law that permitted but did not require back
pay as a remedy. Under the FLSA or MSPA, the Department (or an employee) seeks back pay for hours an
employee has actually worked, under laws that require payment for such work. The Supreme Court's concern
with awarding back pay "for years of work not performed, for wages that could not lawfully have been earned,"
does not apply to work actually performed. Two federal courts already have adopted this approach. See Flores
v. Albertson's, Inc., 2002 WL 1163623 (C.D. Cal. 2002); Liu v. Donna Karan International, Inc., 2002 WL
1300260 (S.D.N.Y. 2002).
The Department of Labor is still considering the effect of Hoffman Plastics on other labor laws it enforces,
including those laws prohibiting retaliation for engaging in protected conduct.
Where to Obtain Additional Information
For additional information, visit our Wage and Hour Division Website:
http://www.wagehour.dol.gov and/or call our toll­free information and helpline, available 8 a.m.
to 5 p.m. in your time zone, 1­866­4USWAGE (1­866­487­9243).  Information about the FLSA and
http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs48.htm

66

1/2

8/28/2015

Case: 15-15211,U.S. Department of Labor ­ Wage and Hour Division (WHD) ­ Fact Sheet
08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 80 of 106

MSPA is also available on the Internet.
This publication is for general information and is not to be considered in the same light as official statements of
position contained in the regulations.
 

http://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs48.htm

67

2/2

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 81 of 106

68

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 82 of 106

69

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 83 of 106

70

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 84 of 106

71

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 85 of 106

72

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 86 of 106

73

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 87 of 106

74

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 88 of 106

75

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 89 of 106

76

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 90 of 106

77

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 91 of 106

78

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 92 of 106

79

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 93 of 106

80

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 94 of 106

81

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 95 of 106

82

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 96 of 106

83

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 97 of 106

84

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 98 of 106

85

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 99 of 106

86

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 100 of 106

87

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 101 of 106

88

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 102 of 106

89

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 103 of 106

90

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 104 of 106

91

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 105 of 106

92

Case: 15-15211, 08/31/2015, ID: 9666315, DktEntry: 60, Page 106 of 106

CERTIFICATE OF DIGITAL SUBMISSION
I hereby certify that: (1) all required privacy redactions have been made in
compliance with 9th Cir. R. 25-5; (2) the ECF submission is an exact copy of the
hard copies to be submitted to the court; and (3) the digital submissions have been
scanned for viruses with Adobe Acrobat XI, Version 11.0.12, and according to the
program are free of viruses.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing AMICI CURIAE
BRIEF OF NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER, ET AL., IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES with the Clerk of the Court for the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit by using the appellate CM/ECF system on
August 31, 2015. Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will
be served by the appellate CM/ECF system.

NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Date: August 31, 2015

/s Joshua T. Stehlik
Joshua T. Stehlik

93