## Facts

- Laguna Beach amended its municipal code to prohibit employment solicitation in public areas except at a location designated by city council resolution.
- The City designated a hiring area on Laguna Canyon Road to reduce local problems associated with day labor solicitation, including trespassing, littering, vandalism, disruption to nearby businesses and residences, and traffic interference.
- The City supported a day labor center operated by a nonprofit organization, using taxpayer funds and municipal resources.
- The site functioned as the primary location for employers to hire day workers in the City; the City did not verify workers’ immigration status.
- Two taxpayer residents sued City officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief barring further expenditures, alleging the program violated federal immigration statutes and was preempted by federal law.
- The parties submitted stipulated written facts with exhibits; after a bench trial, the superior court entered judgment for the City.
- Plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the City’s funding and support of the day labor center constituted unlawful “referral” of unauthorized aliens for employment for a fee under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
2. Whether the City’s conduct unlawfully “encouraged” or “induced” unauthorized aliens to reside in the United States under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
3. Whether the City provided a federally “prohibited public benefit” to undocumented aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1621.
4. Whether federal immigration law preempted the City’s ordinance, resolution, and expenditures, making the spending unlawful and a waste of taxpayer funds.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for the City.
- The City’s support of the center was not “referring” unauthorized aliens for employment “for a fee” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
- The City did not unlawfully “encourage” or “induce” unauthorized aliens to reside in the United States within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
- The day labor center was not a “prohibited public benefit” under 8 U.S.C. § 1621.
- Federal immigration law did not preempt the City’s local public-order measures, and the expenditures were not illegal or wasteful.

## Legal Principles

- A municipal program that designates and supports a location for employers and workers to meet, without operating as an employment agency or matching workers to jobs, does not constitute “referral” for employment “for a fee” under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
- “Encouraging” or “inducing” unlawful residence under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 requires more direct conduct than a local government’s regulation of where employment solicitation occurs.
- 8 U.S.C. § 1621 restricts specified categories of state or local “public benefits”; providing a location and administrative structure for private hiring does not, without more, fall within those restricted benefits.
- Local ordinances aimed at public safety and order (such as traffic and nuisance control) are not preempted merely because they relate to conduct also associated with immigration-related concerns, absent conflict with federal objectives or an attempt to regulate immigration status.
- In a California taxpayer action, declaratory or injunctive relief requires proof that the challenged expenditure is illegal or constitutes waste; absent a legal violation, funding decisions are not enjoined as “waste.”

## Conclusion

The court held that Laguna Beach’s taxpayer-funded support of a nonprofit-operated day labor site was a permissible local response to public-order concerns and did not violate federal immigration statutes, confer prohibited public benefits, or trigger federal preemption; therefore, the expenditures were not an illegal or wasteful use of taxpayer funds.


Garcia v. Dicterow, No. G039824, 2008 WL 5050358 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 26, 2008)