Skip to content
LPBN-Icon-v1
ImmigrationProf Blog
A Member of the Law Professor Blogs Network

Breaking News: Court Enjoins “No Match” Regulation from Going Into Effect

By immigrationprof

AP reports that a federal judge today granted a request by labor and civil liberties organizations to temporarily block the U.S. government from proceeding with a plan to crack down on businesses who may be employing illegal immigrants. U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer said the Social Security Administration and the Department of Homeland Security could not go ahead with a plan to send joint letters warning businesses they’ll face penalties if they keep workers whose Social Security numbers don’t match their names. “The plaintiff’s have demonstrated they will be irreparably harmed if DHS is permitted to enforce the new rule,” Breyer wrote. The so-called “No Match” letters were supposed to start going out in September, but labor groups and immigrant activists filed a lawsuit claiming the plan would put a heavy burden on employers, and could cause many authorized immigrants and U.S. citizens to lose their jobs over innocent paperwork snafus.

Bender’s Immigration Bulletin has posted a copy of the district court’s order.  Here is the punch-line:

“On August 15, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) promulgated a final rule entitled “Safe-Harbor Procedures for Employers Who Receive a No-Match Letter.” See 72 Fed. Reg. 45611 (Aug. 15, 2007). Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions and business groups, filed a motion for preliminary injunction, arguing that injunctive relief is appropriate because they have demonstrated a high probability of success on four theories: that the rule (1) contravenes the governing statute; (2) is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act; (3) is an exercise of ultra vires authority by DHS and the Social Security Administration (SSA); and (4) was promulgated in violation of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The balance of hardships tips sharply in plaintiffs’ favor and plaintiffs have raised serious questions going to the merits. Accordingly, the motion for a preliminary injunction is GRANTED.”

AFL-CIO v. Chertoff, Oct. 10, 2007.

KJ