## Facts

- A Pennsylvania city enacted two related ordinances in 2006 aimed at deterring undocumented immigrants from living and working in the city.
- One ordinance penalized employers who hired “illegal aliens” and landlords who rented to them, including through fines and suspension of business permits.
- A tenant-registration/occupancy-permit ordinance required tenants to obtain a city permit and prove lawful presence; landlords were barred from renting to tenants without permits.
- Plaintiffs included individual residents (citizens, lawful residents, and undocumented immigrants) and community organizations alleging harms to housing, employment, business activity, and community participation.
- Before the ordinances took effect, plaintiffs sued for declaratory and injunctive relief; the court entered temporary and preliminary injunctive relief.
- After a bench trial, the court entered a permanent injunction and invalidated key provisions of the ordinances.

## Issues

1. Whether federal immigration statutes (including the INA and IRCA) preempted local ordinances regulating employment and housing based on immigration status.
2. Whether the ordinances violated procedural due process by authorizing serious penalties (license loss, eviction-related consequences) without adequate notice, hearing, and reliable fact-finding.
3. Whether the ordinances created unconstitutional discrimination risks implicating equal protection by pressuring landlords and employers to avoid renting to or hiring people perceived as foreign.
4. Whether the city exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law by creating landlord-tenant and employment enforcement schemes inconsistent with state regulatory frameworks.
5. Whether plaintiffs, including anonymous plaintiffs, had standing and could proceed pseudonymously due to fear of immigration-related repercussions.

## Decision

- The court held the challenged provisions were preempted because they intruded into and conflicted with Congress’s comprehensive immigration scheme governing unauthorized presence, employment, and related enforcement.
- The court held the ordinances violated due process by imposing substantial deprivations through procedures that did not provide adequate notice, meaningful opportunity to contest determinations, or sufficiently reliable fact-finding.
- The court found the ordinances would predictably encourage discrimination based on race or national origin by incentivizing landlords and employers to avoid those who appear or sound foreign, including lawful residents and citizens.
- The court held the city exceeded its authority under Pennsylvania law by creating local enforcement and eviction-linked mechanisms that conflicted with state landlord-tenant and related regulatory structures.
- The court permitted certain plaintiffs to proceed anonymously and found standing adequately supported, given the risk of adverse immigration consequences and the city’s limited need for identities to defend.
- The court declared the principal challenged provisions invalid and permanently enjoined enforcement.

## Legal Principles

- Federal immigration regulation is primarily committed to the national government; local laws are invalid where they regulate in a field occupied by federal law or create obstacles to federal objectives.
- IRCA establishes a federal scheme for employer sanctions and limits state and local variation; local penalties and procedures that materially diverge from the federal framework are subject to preemption.
- Procedural due process requires adequate notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before government action causes serious deprivations such as license suspension, significant fines, or housing loss; procedures must support reliable determinations.
- Laws that predictably pressure private actors to discriminate against protected groups can raise equal protection concerns, particularly where enforcement mechanisms incentivize decisions based on appearance, accent, surname, or perceived origin.
- Municipal ordinances are invalid under state law when they conflict with state-created regulatory frameworks governing landlord-tenant relations and business regulation.
- Courts may allow pseudonymous litigation where disclosure poses a substantial risk of harm (including immigration-related consequences) and the opposing party’s need for identities is limited.

## Conclusion

The district court permanently enjoined enforcement of the city’s employment and housing ordinances, holding that they were preempted by federal immigration law, lacked constitutionally adequate procedural safeguards, created strong incentives for discriminatory treatment, and exceeded municipal authority under Pennsylvania law.


Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 496 F. Supp. 2d 477 (M.D. Pa. 2007)