EXHIBITS ACCOMPANYING DECLARATION
Valle del Sol v. Whiting
• Email message (PDF) from former Arizona state senator Russell Pearce, subject: “INVASION USA.” Implies that Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa is an operative of “Mexican nationalists”; states that the mayor is “Vicente Fox's general . . . commanding an American city” . . . (highlighting added).
• Email message (PDF) from the email account of Arizona state senator Karen Johnson reporting that a landscaping crew in the message sender’s neighborhood contained “two men who were obviously NOT Hispanic — very white and very American looking . . . .”
• Full declaration, with exhibits (PDF).
Valle del Sol, et al. v. Whiting, et al.
(formerly Friendly House, et al. v. Whiting, et al.)
Briefs and Orders/Opinions Filed with/Issued by the 9th Circuit in Valle del Sol v. Whiting — on Appeal from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (from latest to earliest):
Briefs and Orders Filed with/Issued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (from latest to earliest):
- Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and preliminarily enjoining the enforcement of A.R.S. § 13-2929, Valle del Sol, et al. v. Whiting, et al. (filed 9/5/12, PDF).
“Plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on their facial challenges to Subsection 2(B) as a result of the Supreme Court’s opinion in the related case. Plaintiffs have shown that they are likely to succeed as to the merits of their claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 is preempted. Plaintiffs have further shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction and that the balance of the equities and the public interest favor an injunction as to A.R.S. § 13-2929.”
- Plaintiffs’ Proposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support, Valle del Sol, et al. v. Whiting, et al., Case No. CV-10-01061-PHX-SRB (filed 7/17/12, PDF).
“Plaintiffs brought many of the same preemption claims as the United States, including the claims that have invalidated §§ 3, 5(C), and 6. But this action involves additional claims, evidence, and irreparable injuries beyond what the Supreme Court had before it in Arizona. In light of those claims, evidence, and injuries and the Supreme Court’s guidance in Arizona, Plaintiffs bring this Motion for Preliminary Injunction, which presents three issues . . . .”
- Order Granting Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) (filed 2/29/12, PDF).
A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) are SB 1070's provisions that penalize day laborers. According to the court's order, "Plaintiffs have demonstrated that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that A.R.S. § 13-2928(A) and (B) violate the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that the public interest favors injunctive relief."
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction of A.R.S. §§ 13-2928(A) and (B) and Memorandum in Support Thereof (filed 1/7/11, PDF)
"Plaintiffs move the Court for a preliminary injunction as to §§ 13-2928 (A) and (B) of the Arizona Revised Statutes in order to halt the ongoing deprivation of First Amendment rights to individuals — day laborers and employers — at risk of prosecution under these provisions."
- Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Reconsideration (filed 10/22/10, PDF)
"The dismissal was premised on the Court’s conclusion that under Hoffman individuals who are 'unlawfully present' and not employment authorized do not have the right to solicit work of any kind. That premise is clearly erroneous, because day labor is exempt from the federal immigrant employment regulation scheme and Hoffman does not purport to address the lawfulness of such exempted work by individuals lacking employment authorization. Nor does Hoffman bar individuals without employment authorization from seeking redress in the courts for alleged violations of First Amendment and other Constitutional rights." (Citations omitted.)
- Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions to Dismiss (Issued 10/8/10, PDF)
Among other things, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona found that the plaintiffs' claim that “Racial discrimination was a motivating factor for [SB] 1070's enactment” establishes a valid constitutional challenge to Arizona's SB 1070.
- Proposed Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Filed 6/4/10, PDF)
- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Filed 5/17/10, PDF)
- Complaint Exhibits 1 & 2 (Arizona Senate & House Bills) (Filed 5/17/10, PDF)
Reporter’s Transcript of Proceedings: Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Injunction (Valle del Sol v. Whiting, No. CV10-1061-PHX-SRB, 8/21/12, PDF)
Reporter's Transcript of Proceedings: Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Friendly House v. Whiting, No. CV10-1061-PHX-SRB, 7/22/10, PDF)
Memorandum Brief of Amicus Curiae American Bar Association in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction
Filed 6/30/10) (Or read the ABA's news release summarizing its four reasons/arguments for why SB 1070 should be enjoined.)
Why Police Chiefs Oppose Arizona’s SB 1070
Excerpts from declarations submitted as part of the Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Friendly House v. Whiting.) (6/10)
Arizona Senate Bill 1070
“[A]n engrossed version of SB1070 with the pertinent changes made by the Conference Engrossed HB2162.” (4/10, PDF)