## Facts

- The City of Escondido adopted Ordinance No. 2006-38R, imposing penalties on landlords for “harboring” an “illegal alien” by renting to that person.
- The ordinance defined “illegal alien” as a person not lawfully present under federal law and required city officials to obtain a federal determination of unlawful presence before treating a person as covered by the ordinance.
- The ordinance created a complaint-driven enforcement process that could trigger city investigations, potential sanctions against landlords, and pressure to evict tenants.
- Landlord plaintiffs and tenant plaintiffs alleged the ordinance would force evictions based on suspected immigration status and expose tenants to loss of housing and discrimination.
- Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief and moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prevent the ordinance from taking effect or being enforced.

## Issues

1. Whether plaintiffs satisfied the TRO standard, including showing a substantial likelihood of success on claims that the ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law and violated due process.
2. Whether plaintiffs showed irreparable harm absent immediate injunctive relief.
3. Whether the balance of hardships and the public interest favored preserving the status quo pending further proceedings.

## Decision

- The court granted a TRO enjoining the City from implementing or enforcing Ordinance No. 2006-38R pending further proceedings.
- The court rejected the City’s argument that the City Manager could administer or construe the ordinance narrowly to avoid constitutional problems, concluding the City Manager lacked authority to materially alter the ordinance’s scope.
- The court found plaintiffs likely faced irreparable harm, including loss of housing for tenants and forced eviction-related harms and business/property harms for landlords.
- The court held the balance of hardships favored plaintiffs because the TRO preserved the status quo while avoiding immediate housing and property consequences.
- The court concluded plaintiffs showed a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, particularly on federal preemption and due process theories, and that the public interest supported maintaining constitutional limits pending adjudication.

## Legal Principles

- A TRO is intended to preserve the status quo and prevent irreparable harm before a preliminary-injunction hearing.
- To obtain TRO relief, the moving party must show (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) the possibility of irreparable injury, (3) a balance of hardships favoring the movant, and (4) when implicated, that the public interest supports relief.
- Local measures that regulate or penalize conduct based on immigration status may be subject to Supremacy Clause preemption where they intrude into or conflict with the federal immigration scheme.
- Likely violations of constitutional rights, including due process protections against deprivation of housing or property interests without adequate procedures and clear standards, may constitute irreparable harm supporting injunctive relief.
- A municipality generally cannot rely on a promised narrowing administrative interpretation by an executive official to cure constitutional defects where the enacted text controls and the official lacks authority to rewrite it.

## Conclusion

The court temporarily barred enforcement of Escondido’s landlord “harboring” ordinance because plaintiffs showed likely irreparable harm and a substantial likelihood of success that the ordinance was preempted by federal immigration law and procedurally deficient under due process, and because preserving the status quo served the public interest.


Garrett v. City of Escondido, 465 F. Supp. 2d 1043 (S.D. Cal. 2006)