"In our opinion, the panel came up with a new theory of liability under the anti-discrimination laws that has never been recognized before,
absent express direction or authorization by federal statute or federal officials, state and local law enforcement officers may not detain or arrest an individual solely based on known or suspected civil violations of federal immigration law.Frederick County's cert petition argues that this creates a circuit split that the Court should resolve:
The panel’s opinion in these consolidated cases invents an entirely unprecedented theory of actionable government discrimination: sinister intent in the enactment of facially neutral legislation can generate civil liability without evidence of discriminatory effect. Such unwarranted expansion
Last year, this blog discussed three recent courts of appeals decisions involving local-housing regulations aimed at a person's immigration status. This morning, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in two of the cases, Farmers Branch v. Villas at Parkside and Hazleton v. Lozano. Both decisions had preempted local ordinances. Image courtesy of Flickr by prathap ramamurthy (creative-commons license, no changes made)....
This morning, the Supreme Court called for the views of the United States Solicitor General ("CVSG") on whether the Court should grant cert in Comptroller of the Treasury of Md v. Wynne, No. 13-485. The case concerns how the dormant commerce clause limits local taxation. The Court uses the CVSG procedure with respect to only about 10 petitions a year. It indicates at least some degree of interest: the chances of a cert-grant increase significantly in such cases. IMLA and its partners filed the only amicus brief in the case, which...