|
EAST VALLEY (Arizona) TRIBUNE
Court dumps lawsuit targeting companies that hire illegals
Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
A federal appeals court that presides
over Arizona rejected one county's creative effort to crack down on
companies that hire undocumented workers: Sue them for racketeering. In a unanimous decision Friday, the
9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals threw out a federal lawsuit filed by
Canyon County, Idaho, against four companies and one person it accused
of an "illegal immigrant hiring scheme." The lawsuit said each of the firms
knowingly employed or harbored undocumented workers in violation of
federal law. But what the county sought was not an
injunction against the firms and the individual, who is a migrant
counselor, but instead the recovery of "millions of dollars for health
care services and criminal justice services for the illegal immigrants." The appellate court said, in essence,
"Nice try." Friday's ruling is significant
because the 9th Circuit sets policy for 14 western states, including
Arizona. That bars future similar lawsuits by either those states or any
of their local governments unless the decision is overturned. The county's lawsuit was based on the
federal Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations act, commonly
known as RICO. That law makes it illegal for anyone
to engage in a pattern of activity that violates certain laws. In this
case, the underlying law on which the county was relying deals with
harboring, transporting or hiring undocumented workers. RICO also allows any person injured
as a result of those acts to sue for triple the amount of assessed
damages. Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for
the court, said Canyon County's approach is legally flawed. He said it may be true that the
county has been forced to spend money because of the acts of the
defendants. But Tashima said governments, unlike
individuals, have no property interest in the services they provide to
the public. That means for all intents and
purposes Canyon County "lost" nothing that can be recovered under RICO. He said even if the county could show
some injury to its property interest, there is no evidence that the
actions of the defendants is directly related to its damages of
increased costs. "There are numerous alternative
causes that might be the actual source or sources of the county's
alleged harm," Tashima wrote. "Increased demand for public health care
and law enforcement may result from such varied factors as demographic
changes; alterations in criminal laws or policy; changes in public
health practices; shifts in economic variables such as wages, insurance
coverage, and unemployment; and improved community education and
outreach by the government." Tashima added that court proceedings
to determine what damages the county actually sustained because of the
actions of the companies "would be speculative in the extreme." Howard Foster, who represented the
county, said he does not believe any of the defendants ever were charged
by federal officials with violating immigration laws. He said no
decision has been made whether to appeal.
|