USA v. State of Arizona, et al
Filed (ECF) Appellants Janice K. Brewer and State of Arizona Motion to take judicial notice of pertinent portions of legislative history from the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986. Date of service: 10/12/2010.  (JB)
USA v. State of Arizona, et al
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. State of Arizona; and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona, in her Official Capacity, Defendants-Appellants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB
APPELLANTS' SECOND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE
John J. Bouma (Ariz. Bar #001358) Robert A. Henry (Ariz. Bar #015104) Joseph G. Adams (Ariz. Bar #018210) SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. One Arizona Center 400 E. Van Buren Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202 Telephone: (602) 382-6000 Fax: (602) 382-6070 firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org Joseph A. Kanefield (Ariz. Bar #015838) Office of Governor Janice K. Brewer 1700 W. Washington, 9th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85007 Telephone: (602) 542-1586 Fax: (602) 542-7602 email@example.com
Attorneys for Defendants-Appellants State of Arizona and Janice K. Brewer, Governor of the State of Arizona
Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201, Defendants-Appellants the State of Arizona and its Governor, Janice K. Brewer (collectively, "Arizona"), request that the Court take judicial notice of pertinent portions of the following legislative history from the Immigration and Reform Act of 1986 ("IRCA"): Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1985: Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Immigration and Refugee Policy, 99th Cong., 1st Sess., S. Hrg. 99-273 (1985). Copies of the pertinent portions of these hearings are attached as Exhibit A. Both the district court and the United States have relied on this legislative history to support the conclusion that Congress intended to preclude states from imposing the sanctions that section 5(C) of S.B. 1070 imposes on aliens who perform unauthorized work. Specifically, both the district court and the United States relied on Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, 913 F.2d 1350, 1368 (9th Cir. 1990), rev'd on other grounds, 502 U.S. 183 (1991), in which this Court relied on the hearings referenced above in finding that "[w]hile Congress initially discussed the merits of fining, detaining or adopting criminal sanctions against the employee, it ultimately rejected all such proposals." See id. at 1368; Appellee Br. at 21, 37-38; [ER 26.] Arizona also relies on these hearings to show that it was not the "clear and manifest purpose" of Congress to preclude states from regulating aliens who perform unauthorized work. Reply at 16-17. It is proper for the Court to take judicial notice of legislative history.
See, e.g., Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (granting request to take judicial notice of a statute's legislative history). Here, the legislative history is over 25 years old and, therefore, is not readily available via a standard subscription to Lexis or Westlaw. To ensure that the Court has easy access to the portions of these hearings that are relevant to this appeal, Arizona respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the legislative history attached as Exhibit A. Dated: October 12, 2010 SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. John J. Bouma Robert A. Henry Joseph G. Adams By: s/John J. Bouma John J. Bouma Attorneys for Appellants, Janice K. Brewer and the State of Arizona
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on October 12, 2010 I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a Notice of Electronic Filing to the following CM/ECF registrants: Tony West Dennis K. Burke Beth S. Brinkmann Mark B. Stern Thomas M. Bondy Michael P. Abate Daniel Tenny U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
s/John J. Bouma
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?