Category Archives: News Releases

House GOP Leads Attack on Immigrants

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2015

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, [email protected], 213-400-7822

NILC: GOP-led House Vote Is Nothing More Than a Partisan Attack on Immigrants

WASHINGTON — In a mostly party-line vote, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives approved measures that would dismantle President Obama’s immigration initiatives going back three years — initiatives that help children, keep families together, assist spouses of U.S. military personnel, and provide humanitarian relief.

The anti-immigrant measures that would strip funding for the president’s immigration programs were inserted into the $39.7 billion spending bill for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

The following is a statement by National Immigration Law Center Executive Director Marielena Hincapié:

“House leadership continues to say they want to find solutions to fix our immigration system, but their actions prove otherwise. There is no denying the intent of the legislation approved today by the GOP-led House: to push back against President Obama’s executive action on immigration by instilling fear in immigrant communities, and to advance policies that could result in millions of Americans who are part of our economic and social fabric being ripped away from their families and our communities.

“In its zeal to attack our immigrant families, the House imperils public safety, our economy, and national security. The bill would force states and localities to comply with failed immigration enforcement programs such as Secure Communities, even though local leaders know they harm public safety. It strips funding from the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, the proposed DACA expansion, and the new Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), even though the new DACA/DAPA initiatives would raise the GDP by $90 billion to $210 billion over 10 years.

“By starting the new congressional session with an attack targeted specifically against immigrants — and risking our national security in the process — the House has again provided us a sad reminder of why the public remains deeply dissatisfied with Congress and political gridlock. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s call for policies that encourage ‘self-deportation’ failed, and so will the House GOP’s call for mass deportation.”

# # #

Law Enforcement Amicus Defending Deferred Action

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 12, 2015

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]

NILC Lauds Police Chiefs′ Legal Defense of Administration’s Deferred Action Initiative on Immigration

WASHINGTON — The National Immigration Law Center (NILC) lauds the decision of law enforcement leaders to inform the federal court of their perspective in support of President Obama’s executive action on immigration on the grounds that blocking it would negatively impact public safety and make it harder for police to do their jobs.

The law enforcement amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) brief was filed by the Major Cities Chiefs Police Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and 27 law enforcement leaders in the case State of Texas et al v. United States. Texas and 24 other states have filed a lawsuit to block the president’s initiative that would allow eligible parents of U.S.-citizen children and parents of lawful permanent residents to apply for temporary deferral of deportation and work authorization (the president’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans, or DAPA, program). The president’s executive action would also expand the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program for immigrants who were brought to the U.S. as children.

In their court filing, the police chiefs make two key arguments in favor of the executive action:

“[The] Deferred Action Initiative will improve public safety by encouraging community cooperation with police, an essential element to effective policing and improving public safety … [and] provide individuals with the opportunity to obtain verified and secure identification, which aids law enforcement in carrying out its day to day duties…. [A] preliminary injunction [against the Deferred Action Initiative] would cause significant harms and would injure the public interest.”

NILC staff attorney Melissa Keaney noted that while the executive action is being attacked in the courts by the president’s opponents seeking to score political points, those actions have consequences in all communities.

“No one should play political games with public safety. These law enforcement leaders have stepped forward to say that the deferred action initiative has solid benefits for community policing,” Keaney said. “The courts, the politicians, and the public should heed the warning of police chiefs that an injunction to block the deferred action will hurt efforts of local police to build trust with community members.”

States from across the country also filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of the Obama administration today. This bipartisan brief, which was filed by states with the largest immigrant populations, including California, New York, and Washington, emphasizes the economic and societal benefits of implementing DACA and DAPA.

A hearing in the case is set for January 15 in Brownsville, TX. Law enforcement leaders who have joined the amicus include:

• Major Cities Chiefs Association, which is a professional association of chiefs and sheriffs representing the largest cities in the United States, serving more than 68 million people.
• Police Executive Research Forum, which is a national membership organization of police executives from the largest city, county and state law enforcement agencies dedicated to improving policing and advancing professionalism through research and involvement in public policy debate.
• Chief Art Acevedo, City of Austin, Texas, Police Department
• Chief Charlie Beck, Los Angeles, California, Police Department
• Chief Richard S. Biehl, Dayton, Ohio, Police Department
• Chief Chris Burbank, Salt Lake City, Utah, Police Department
• Sheriff Mark C. Curran Jr., Lake County, Illinois, Sheriff’s Office
• Sheriff Tony Estrada, Santa Cruz County, Arizona, Sheriff’s Office
• Commissioner William B. Evans, Boston, Massachusetts, Police Department
• Sheriff Adrian Garcia, Harris County, Texas, Sheriff’s Office
• Sheriff Marlin Gusman, New Orleans Parish, Louisiana, Sheriff’s Office
• Chief James Hawkins, Garden City, Kansas, Police Department
• Chief Dwight Henninger, Vail, Colorado, Police Department
• Chief Michael C. Koval, Madison, Wisconsin, Police Department
• Chief Jose L. Lopez Sr., Durham, North Carolina, Police Department
• Sheriff Leon Lott, Richland County, South Carolina, Sheriff’s Department
• Sheriff Bill McCarthy, Polk County, Iowa, Sheriff’s Office
• Chief Roy W. Minter, Jr., Peoria, Arizona, Police Department
• Lieutenant Andy Norris, Tuscaloosa County, Alabama, Sheriff’s Office
• Chief Kathleen O’Toole, Seattle, Washington, Police Department
• Commissioner Charles Ramsey, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department
• Chief Greg Suhr, San Francisco, California, Police Department
• Chief Ron Teachman, South Bend, Indiana, Police Department
• Chief Michael Tupper, Marshalltown, Iowa, Police Department
• Sheriff John Urquhart, King County, Washington, Sheriff’s Office
• Sheriff Lupe Valdez, Dallas County, Texas, Sheriff’s Department
• Chief Roberto Villaseñor, Tucson, Arizona, Police Department
• Chief Robert White, Denver, Colorado, Police Department
• Sheriff Richard D. Wiles, El Paso County, Texas, Sheriff’s Office

The law enforcement amicus brief is available at www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1189.

# # #

Amicus Filed in Executive Action Case

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 29, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]

Immigration, Civil Rights, and Labor Groups Join Legal Effort to Defend President’s Executive Action on Immigration

WASHINGTON —Today, immigration, civil rights and labor groups joined the legal effort to defend President Obama’s recent executive action on immigration by filing an amicus (“friend-of-the-court”) brief in the case, State of Texas v. United States.

In the days after the president’s November 20 announcement, two lawsuits were filed seeking to block implementation of the new deferred action initiatives. Both lawsuits seek a preliminary injunction, which would temporarily block the programs from being implemented during the life of the lawsuit. The amicus brief, which was written in support of the federal government, provides economic, fiscal, and societal reasons to allow these programs to take effect later this year.

“President Obama’s executive action isn’t just about policy — it’s about people,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “A court has been asked to block a policy that will keep families together and improve our economy. Any delay to implementation of the new deferred action initiatives wouldn’t just hurt immigrants, it would hurt all of us. Justice delayed is justice denied.”

The National Immigration Law Center, the American Immigration Council, American Immigration Lawyers Association, Define American, National Immigrant Justice Center, New Orleans Workers’ Center for Racial Justice, Service Employees International Union, Southern Poverty Law Center, and United We Dream filed a brief opposing the states’ request for a preliminary injunction against the administration’s new deferred action initiatives.

In their brief, the groups provide powerful testimonials about potential beneficiaries of the new deferred action initiatives, many of whom are already entrepreneurs and community leaders. These individuals include a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, passionate advocates and volunteers, and primary breadwinners for U.S. citizen children. The groups also explain how the deferred action initiatives will improve the U.S. economy, raising wages, increasing tax revenue, and creating new jobs.

Legal battles against President Obama’s action on immigration have already begun. Last week, the first case brought by Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, was rejected by a federal district court judge in D.C. The second case, filed by Texas and 24 other states, is currently set to be heard on January 9, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Brownsville Division.

These lawsuits are merely an attempt to use the courts for political ends; scores of legal experts agree that the President’s actions are well within the scope of his executive authority. Beneath the surface of the lawsuits are the same speculative and discredited myths of criminality and economic impacts that have long fueled anti-immigrant rhetoric.

To view the groups’ legal brief in full, see www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1184.

For more information about the president’s action, visitwww.nilc.org/relief.html.

# # #

FOIA Lawsuit: Driver’s License Databases

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected]

National Immigration Center Sues for Information about Immigration Enforcement Use of Driver’s License Database

Freedom of Information Act lawsuit seeks to shed light on how the government uses license databases when searching for immigrants

LOS ANGELES — After months of requests and appeals, the National Immigration Law Center, represented by Paul Hastings, LLP, filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to learn more about Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials’ use of state driver’s license databases for immigration enforcement purposes. This lawsuit comes weeks before California is set to join eight other states and the District of Columbia in allowing undocumented immigrants to apply for state licenses.

“Californians understand that it’s in our best interest to ensure that all our drivers are tested, trained, licensed, and insured,” said Melissa Keaney, staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center. “Immigrants who come forward shouldn’t have to worry about how the information they provide might be used by immigration authorities. Unfortunately, instead of reassuring advocates and immigrants, ICE has been remarkably tightlipped about how they access database information. We filed this lawsuit to find out why.”

Advocates in other states have reported raids and other immigration enforcement activities that resulted from immigration authorities locating immigrants via driver’s license databases. ICE officials admitted to using the databases in Maryland but provided no information about internal protocols for ensuring that databases are not used simply to search for immigrants who may lack status.

“Maryland joined other states in recognizing the importance of allowing all residents to apply for licenses,” said George Escobar, director of Health and Human Services at CASA de Maryland, an immigrants’ rights organization. “Unfortunately, the immigration raids that resulted from database searches have sent a chill through the immigrant community and may have prevented people from coming forward to apply for licenses. Immigration authorities should come clean and explain how they use these databases, and why.”

The National Immigration Law Center also filed a motion for preliminary injunction to process its request as quickly as possible, a request that advocates believe will allow groups to better understand when and how ICE uses databases in its efforts to detain and deport immigrants. Groups hope to use this information to ensure that all those eligible for licenses will be able to come forward and apply for them. With an estimated 1.4 million people currently eligible for California’s new license, driver’s license databases could expand precipitously early next year.

“We look forward to an expeditious and successful resolution to this matter, which will shed light on the use of driver’s license databases by federal agencies and, ultimately, improve public safety,” said Andrew Grossman, a lawyer with global law firm Paul Hastings who is advising the National Immigration Law Center.

Established in 1979, the National Immigration Law Center is the only advocacy organization in the United States exclusively dedicated to defending and advancing the rights and opportunities of low-income immigrants and their families. NILC advances its mission through policy analysis and litigation, along with education and advocacy. Over the past three decades, NILC has won landmark legal decisions protecting fundamental rights, thwarted policies that would have devastated the lives of low-income immigrants and their family members, and advanced major policies that reinforce our nation’s values of equality, opportunity, and justice for all.

The complaint is available at www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1177.

To learn more about immigrant access to driver’s licenses, visit www.nilc.org/driverlicenses.html.

# # #

ADAC – Supreme Court Denies Stay

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Center, [email protected]
Isabel Alegría, American Civil Liberties Union 415-343-0785, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540, [email protected]
Larry Gonzalez, MALDEF, 202-466-0879, [email protected]

Supreme Court Refuses to Allow Arizona to Deny Driver’s Licenses to Immigrant Youth

Supreme Court rules that DREAMers can apply for licenses pending the high court’s review of state’s appeal request

WASHINGTON — Immigrant youth will be allowed to receive driver’s licenses in Arizona while the Supreme Court considers whether or not to hear an appeal of a Ninth Circuit ruling inArizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, a lawsuit challenging the state’s denial of licenses to immigrants who have been granted Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) under a federal program.

Arizona had asked the high court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate while it considered Arizona’s request for certiorari, or judicial review of the federal appeals court ruling in the case.

“This is a victory for the community. It will change many lives for the better,” said Carla Chavarria, a plaintiff in the lawsuit. “Personally I will be able to run my business more effectively and no longer have to rely on public transportation. We will be able to contribute to our state without any boundaries.”

The Supreme Court’s denial today of Arizona’s stay motion opens the way for the Arizona federal district court to issue a preliminary injunction prohibiting the state from continuing to deny driver’s licenses to DACA recipients. Once the district court enters an injunction, the young immigrants would be allowed to receive driver’s licenses.

“Justice, in this case, took more than two years to finally be delivered, but we’re no less pleased with the outcome,” said Karen Tumlin, managing attorney with the National Immigration Law Center. “Soon, immigrant youth will be able to contribute more fully to their communities and economy, and they’ll finally have the identification proving on paper what they already know: that they are Arizonans.”

Today’s decision is the latest victory in a civil rights coalition’s lawsuit against the policy, ordered by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in 2012 shortly after the Obama administration announced its DACA program. In July, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the policy was likely unconstitutional and that the group of young people—who have permission from the federal government to live and work in the U.S.—are seriously impaired by their inability to get drivers’ licenses.

“This order is a big holiday gift to the DREAMers — and a lump of coal for Governor Brewer,” said Jennifer Chang Newell, senior staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It’s time for Arizona leaders to put this unwise, discriminatory policy behind them and let it end with Governor Brewer’s term.”

“Arizona continues to appeal and lose, at great tax payer expense,” said Victor Viramontes, MALDEF national senior counsel. “Now, the federal courts are directing Arizona to issue drivers’ licenses to DACA recipients and stop their established pattern of violating constitutional rights.”

The American Civil Liberties Union, the National Immigration Law Center, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the ACLU of Arizona challenged the executive order and related policies in court, alleging that the ban violates DACA recipients’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the principles of federal supremacy in the area of immigration policy and law.

A copy of today’s decision by the Supreme Court is available at www.nilc.org/document.html?id=1176.

# # #

Obama Action Is About Family Values

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 10, 2014

CONTACT
Gebe Martinez, 703-731-9505, [email protected]

NILC: Obama Action Is About Family Values

WASHINGTON — The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing today on “Keeping Families Together: The President’s Executive Action on Immigration and the Need to Pass Comprehensive Reform.” National Immigration Law Center Executive Director Marielena Hincapié released the following statement prior to the hearing:

“For years, we have heard politicians speak of defending ‘family values,’ and that is one area that is sorely lacking in today’s immigration system. President Obama, acting within his full legal authority, has taken action to allow parents of citizen children and others to come forward to apply to work legally and pay more taxes. Most importantly, this will give children and their loved ones the security of knowing that the children’s immigrant parents are no longer one traffic stop away from being forcibly deported from their lives.

“Participants must qualify for the president’s program that temporarily defers deportation for three years. It is not ‘amnesty,’ as critics have falsely maintained, and it does not confer permanent residence or citizenship. It does not place these parents or young immigrants ahead of anyone currently experiencing a long wait, because of our dysfunctional immigration system, for their visas to be approved, nor does it rewrite or undo immigration law.

“Let’s get the facts straight and remember the benefits that will come from this program for all workers, U.S.-born and immigrants. Fewer workers will be subjected to abuse by employers who retaliate against them. Instead, they’ll be empowered to improve working conditions for all.

“The Council of Economic Advisors estimates the U.S. GDP will rise by 0.4 percent after 10 years, ‘equivalent to an additional $90 billion in real GDP in 2024,’ under the president’s program, partly because of increased productivity from the American labor force that will grow by nearly 150,000 people over 10 years. The impact on U.S.-born workers is not job losses, but a rise in average wages by 0.3 percent in 2024. Also, federal budget deficits are expected to be cut by $25 billion in 2024 because of the growth in the GDP resulting from this important action on immigration.

“The president’s actions are a good, though temporary and limited, first step. The limitations on this program underscore the need for Congress to enact long-term, comprehensive solutions to the problems we face.

“We will continue to fight for the rights of all workers, no matter where they were born. Meanwhile, those who do qualify for relief should have the same right and responsibility to lead healthy, productive lives as anyone else. As the world celebrates Human Rights Day today, it is very apt that the Senate Judiciary Committee is highlighting the rights and dignity that will be restored for about 5 million immigrants as under President Obama’s action on immigration.”

# # #

Petty Politics in the House of Representatives

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 4, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]

Petty Politics in the House of Representatives

Yoho vote shows utter disregard for practical solutions to repair immigration system

WASHINGTON — In a move that allowed the House of Representatives to continue venting its dislike for President Obama and his policies, lawmakers voted along party lines Thursday on a bill that attempts to limit the president’s well-founded executive authority over immigration.

The vote against the president’s policy to allow parents of U.S. citizen children and other immigrants who meet certain requirements to apply for temporary deportation relief and work authorization was the latest in a series of recent actions intended to strip the president of his legal authority over immigration enforcement. This legal authority is based on established regulations, court decisions, and historical precedent.

Earlier this week, the House Judiciary Committee used a hearing to make the claim that the president’s action exceeded his executive authority. Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center, was the only hearing witness who detailed the legal and historic precedents for the president’s action, and she issued the following statement after today’s House vote:

“Unable to legislate on pragmatic immigration reform, the House has resorted to tearing apart legal and moral policy solutions proposed by President Obama that are a temporary, first step toward much-needed immigration reform.

“Congress’s vote today is a rejection of the will of all Americans for Congress to fix our dysfunctional immigration system in a way that protects families, sustains our economic growth, and upholds our nation’s moral values.

“During the House Judiciary Committee hearing this week, I testified to the facts: Under the law, the president has a duty to enforce the laws and the authority to decide how to do so. On immigration, he has done just that, removing the threat of deportation for millions of aspiring citizens and their families.

“Our immigration system is broken. Rather than continuing to lob misguided attacks on the president’s recent immigration initiative, we recommend that House members do what they were hired to do: legislate. Bring immigration reform up for a vote, and give the American people the permanent solution they have supported for years.”

# # #

Protected: Executive Director Testifies on Immigration

Statement on HB 497 Ruling in Utah

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 25, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, 213-400-7822, [email protected]

Civil Rights Groups Celebrate Undoing of Utah Anti-Immigrant Law

Settlement reached following federal court decision to block key provisions in Utah’s HB 497 and impose limits on enforcement of “show me your papers” provision

SALT LAKE CITY — The State of Utah has agreed to scrap key provisions of Utah’s HB 497 in a settlement with civil rights groups. HB 497 is a severe, anti-immigrant law that would have criminalized everyday activities, such as driving an undocumented immigrant to the store, and would have authorized police to stop or detain an individual simply to verify his or her immigration status. Under the terms of the settlement, the state has agreed to permanently block or impose limits on these provisions of the controversial law.

“After three long years, it’s finally clear in Utah that treating people differently based on the way they look or whether they have an accent is just plain wrong,” said Archie Archuleta, a plaintiff and former president of Utah Coalition of La Raza. “Today is a great day for Utahns, no matter where they were born.”

The state’s infamous “show me your papers” provision has been severely restricted under the terms of the settlement, which make clear that police will not be allowed to stop or detain an individual simply to verify immigration status or to transport them to federal officials based on suspicion of unlawful presence. Finally, the settlement makes clear that the law does not require Utahns to carry identification with them at all times.

“Utah joins nearly half a dozen other states in realizing that punitive racial profiling laws have no place in their lawbooks,” said Shiu Ming Cheer, staff attorney for the National Immigration Law Center. “Today’s settlement marks the penultimate chapter in an ugly anti-immigrant episode that began with Arizona’s SB 1070. We hope this news will send a signal to those in Phoenix: Experimenting with racial profiling policies will only result in lengthy court battles and, ultimately, losses.”

The settlement follows a federal district court decision in July that blocked major provisions of the state law, a move that came more than three years after HB 497 was challenged by civil rights groups and individuals in the state.

“We are pleased with the outcome of this settlement knowing that it paves the way for Utah to address broad issues impacting family and community safety without the scourge of fear and racial profiling this law created,” said Karen McCreary, executive director of the ACLU of Utah.

In the 2011 filing, civil rights groups charged that HB 497 is unconstitutional because it unlawfully interferes with federal power and authority over immigration matters in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution and authorizes and requires unreasonable seizures and arrests in violation of the Fourth Amendment, among other constitutional challenges.

“Utah’s decision to settle this case sends a clear message to states and cities across the country that they have no business stopping or detaining people just because of suspicions about their immigration status,” said Jennifer Chang Newell of the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project. “This is a victory for the courageous plaintiffs in this case and for immigrant communities throughout the state.”

Counsel for the plaintiffs in the case are:

National Immigration Law Center: Linton Joaquin, Karen C. Tumlin, Shiu-Ming Cheer, Melissa S. Keaney

ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project: Cecillia Wang, Omar C. Jadwat, Andre Segura, Katherine Desormeau, Jennifer Chang Newell

ACLU of Utah: Leah Farrell

Munger, Tollles & Olson LLP: Bradley S. Phillips.

# # #

Ruling on Driver’s Licenses for Arizona DACA Recipients

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 24, 2014

CONTACT
Adela de la Torre, National Immigration Law Center, 213-400-7822, [email protected]
Isabel Alegria, ACLU national 415-343-0785, 646-438-4146, [email protected]
Larry Gonzalez, MALDEF, 202 466-0879, [email protected]
Steve Kilar, ACLU of Arizona, 602-492-8540, [email protected]

Federal Appeals Court Rejects Arizona’s Request to Rehear Driver’s License Case

Decision — at long last — paves the way for young immigrants to apply for driver’s licenses

SAN FRANCISCO — Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to reconsider its earlier ruling that Arizona governor Jan Brewer’s denial of driver’s licenses to certain young immigrants is unconstitutional. The move validates a decision issued in July ordering the state to stop depriving those young immigrants who came to this country as children from obtaining a driver’s license. This group of young people — who have permission from the federal government to live and work in the U.S. — are seriously impaired by their inability to get drivers’ licenses, the court said earlier this year.

Today’s ruling is the latest legal victory in a civil rights coalition’s lawsuit against a discriminatory policy that prevented Arizona youth granted work authorization through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program from applying for state-issued identification.

The news was welcomed by plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Arizona DREAM Act Coalition President Dulce Matuz, who said, “Governor Brewer has wasted countless taxpayer dollars defending a misguided and harmful policy that has been rejected time and time again by the courts. We hope today’s announcement allows us to finally apply for the identification document that rightly identifies us as Arizonans.”

“With today’s decision, the court has made crystal clear that Arizona’s quixotic quest to turn immigrants into villains is constitutionally unsound, and it vindicates our courageous plaintiffs,” said Marielena Hincapié, executive director of the National Immigration Law Center. “This should serve as a wakeup call for the new governor: Do what’s best for your state by allowing everyone who should be able to get a license to do so, so they can drive to school and work and participate fully in their communities.”

MALDEF National Senior Counsel, Victor Viramontes, said: “Arizona’s anti-immigrant campaign is a destructive policy that has proven to be very costly for tax payers. Now, Arizona has lost yet again in federal court, and DACA recipients will finally receive the licenses that Arizona should never have denied them.”

For more than two years, the plaintiffs in this case have fought for the right to earn driver’s licenses.

In August of 2012, Brewer issued an order specifically denying licenses to young immigrants who are granted permission to live and work in the U.S. under the DACA program. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the ACLU of Arizona challenged the executive order and related policies in court, alleging that the ban violates DACA recipients’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the principles of federal supremacy in the area of immigration policy and law.

After a federal district court held, in May 2013, that Arizona’s policy likely constituted unconstitutional discrimination, the state sought to expand its denial of licenses to additional categories of immigrants, unsuccessfully seeking to avoid the appearance of discrimination.

In July 2014, the Ninth Circuit determined that Brewer’s policy was likely to be found unconstitutional and approved a preliminary injunction to allow immigrant youth to apply for licenses. This injunction was placed on hold after Arizona requested rehearing en banc, which would have provided the state an opportunity to make their arguments in front of an 11-judge panel.

Before denying Arizona’s rehearing request, the court had invited the United States to share its views on whether the case should be reheard. In September, the United States filed a brief with the court agreeing that Arizona’s policy is unconstitutional and opposing its rehearing request.

“The Ninth Circuit, district court, and federal government all agree: Arizona’s denial of driver’s licenses to hardworking young immigrants violates our Constitution,” said Jennifer Chang Newell, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project. “It is long past time for Governor Brewer to read the writing on the wall and let the DREAMers drive!”

“A copy of the court’s order is available here.

For more information about the lawsuit challenging the policy in Arizona denying driver’s licenses to DREAMers, visithttp://www.nilc.org/driverlicenselitigation.html.

# # #

111