## Facts

- In 2006, the City of Hazleton, Pennsylvania enacted ordinances aimed at unauthorized immigrants, including the Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance (IIRAO) and the Rental Registration Ordinance (RRO).
- The IIRAO penalized employers that hired “unlawful workers” by suspending or revoking business licenses and used federal immigration definitions to identify “illegal aliens.”
- The IIRAO also contained housing-related “harboring” provisions that treated a tenant’s lack of lawful immigration status as a lease breach and imposed sanctions on landlords renting to such tenants.
- The RRO required all prospective tenants to obtain an occupancy permit from the city, pay a fee, and provide proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful residency.
- Landlords were required to collect and verify occupancy permits and faced fines and potential loss of rental licenses for noncompliance.
- The ordinances never took effect because plaintiffs promptly filed suit, and the district court issued preliminary and then permanent injunctive relief.
- The district court permanently enjoined both ordinances as preempted by federal immigration law; after an earlier affirmance, the Supreme Court vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of decisions addressing immigration preemption.

## Issues

1. Whether the IIRAO’s employer licensing sanctions for hiring “unlawful workers” were preempted by the federal immigration employer-sanctions scheme under IRCA, including as interpreted after *Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting*.
2. Whether the IIRAO and RRO housing provisions (occupancy permits conditioned on lawful presence, lease consequences tied to status, and “harboring” prohibitions) were preempted by federal immigration law, including federal harboring statutes and the federal system governing presence and removal.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction against enforcement of the IIRAO and RRO.
- The court held the employment provisions were preempted because they conflicted with IRCA’s comprehensive employer-sanctions framework and its required procedures and protections.
- The court held the housing and rental-registration provisions were preempted because they functioned as local regulation of unlawful presence and residence, intruding into federal control and conflicting with federal enforcement choices.
- The court concluded that intervening Supreme Court authority reinforced, rather than displaced, the preemption analysis invalidating Hazleton’s ordinances.

## Legal Principles

- Federal immigration law may preempt state or local measures through field preemption (exclusive federal domain) and conflict preemption (local law conflicts with federal methods or objectives).
- Even when a local ordinance borrows federal immigration classifications, it is preempted if it creates local mechanisms to determine status or imposes consequences Congress did not authorize.
- A local employer-sanctions regime conflicts with IRCA when it departs from federally required verification and adjudicative safeguards, or when it permits local officials to impose licensing penalties based on nonfederal determinations.
- Local housing restrictions that deny the ability to rent based on immigration status are preempted when they operate as a de facto local removal tool and interfere with federal discretion and priorities.
- Local “harboring” rules that expand or rework federally defined harboring liability conflict with Congress’s chosen national criminal framework and enforcement structure.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that Hazleton’s employment and housing ordinances targeting unauthorized immigrants were invalid under federal preemption principles because they established local status-based enforcement and penalties that conflicted with, and intruded upon, the comprehensive federal immigration scheme.


Lozano v. City of Hazleton, 724 F.3d 297 (3d Cir. 2013)