USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Filing 191

Filed (ECF) Appellee USA citation of supplemental authorities. Date of service: 12/17/2010. [7583921] (MPA)

USA v. State of Arizona, et al

Doc. 191

U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Room 7531 Washington, D.C. 20530

Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone] December 17, 2010 VIA CM/ECF Ms. Molly C. Dwyer Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit P.O. Box 193939 San Francisco, CA 94119-3939

Re:

United States of America v. Arizona, No. 10-16645 (9th Cir.) Argued November 1, 2010 before Judges Noonan, Paez, and Bea

Dear Ms. Dwyer: Pursuant to F.R.A.P. 28(j), the United States hereby responds to the November 24, 2010, letter filed by Amicus Curiae American Unity Legal Defense Fund. Amicus belatedly and incorrectly suggests that the Supreme Court disapproved this Court's analysis of IRCA's legislative history in National Center for Immigrants' Rights v. INS, 913 F.2d 1350, 1367-69 (9th Cir. 1990), when it reversed this Court's holding on grounds unrelated to that analysis. This Court determined that "[w]hile Congress initially discussed the merits of fining, detaining or adopting criminal sanctions against the employee" for working without authorization, "it ultimately rejected all such proposals." Id. at 1368. The Supreme Court cast no doubt on that observation. Instead, the Supreme Court disagreed with this Court's construction of the regulation and statute at issue in that case, neither of which is relevant here. See INS v. Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, 502 U.S. 183 (1991). The Supreme Court also described this Court's reliance on cases construing the Attorney General's detention authority as "misplaced" and "too cramped." See id. at 193 (citing United States v. Witkovich, 353 U.S. 194 (1957); Carlson v. Landon, 342 U.S. 524 (1952)). That conclusion likewise has no bearing on this Court's analysis of IRCA.

Dockets.Justia.com

The Supreme Court's observation that immigration restrictions have been designed in part to "preserve jobs for American workers," id. at 194 (internal quotation marks omitted), echoes this Court's observation that Congress sought to address "serious problems associated with illegal employment, including loss of jobs for low-income Americans," 913 F.2d at 1367. It in no way calls into question this Court's conclusion about the means Congress chose to address that problem. Amicus notes that before the passage of IRCA this Court had characterized the INA's concern with employment as "peripheral." See INS, 502 U.S. at 186-87 (quoting Nat'l Ctr. for Immigrants' Rights, Inc. v. INS, 791 F.2d 1351, 1356 (9th Cir. 1986)). That prior characterization has no bearing on this Court's subsequent analysis of IRCA's legislative history. In short, the Supreme Court's opinion is fully consistent with this Court's analysis of IRCA's legislative history.

-2-

Sincerely, TONY WEST Assistant Attorney General DENNIS K. BURKE United States Attorney EDWIN S. KNEEDLER Deputy Solicitor General BETH S. BRINKMANN Deputy Assistant Attorney General MARK B. STERN THOMAS M. BONDY MICHAEL P. ABATE DANIEL TENNY [phone] Attorneys, Appellate Staff Civil Division, Room 7531 Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 s/ Thomas M. Bondy s/ Daniel Tenny Attorneys for the United States cc (by CM/ECF): All Counsel of Record

-3-