A federal appeals court ruling striking down a California city's ordinance barring motorists from stopping to solicit work from day laborers should also be considered by a judge ruling over Alabama's new immigration law, say attorneys for a coalition of civil rights groups suing to strike down Alabama's law.

Alabama's law has similar day laborer provisions as that of a Redondo Beach, Calif., law that was struck down by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday, said Sam Brooke, attorney at the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Attorneys from the Southern Poverty Law Center, American Civil Liberties Union and other legal groups, which represent the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama and others, filed a notice on Saturday in the federal court for north Alabama noting the 9th Circuit ruling. HICA and the other groups, the U.S. Justice Department, and the bishops of three church denominations have filed lawsuits seeking to have the Alabama immigration law struck down.

Chief U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn on Aug. 24 held a hearing with attorneys who filed the three lawsuits and the state's attorneys defending the law on whether she should issue a preliminary injunction to bar enforcement of the new Alabama law while the cases are pending.

To give her more time to rule, Blackburn on Aug. 29 issued a temporary injunction to block implementation of the law that had most of its provisions set to go into effect Sept. 1. She plans to issue an opinion no later than Sept. 28 on the preliminary injunction request. The temporary injunction expires Sept. 29.

The reasons the 9th Circuit ruling is relevant to the Alabama law is that attorneys for the state used a ruling by a three-member panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- which had initially let the Redondo Beach ordinance stand -- to support their arguments before Blackburn that the day laborer provisions of the Alabama law were constitutional, Brooke said.

But what the full 11-member 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel said last week is that ordinances like the one in Redondo Beach violate First Amendment rights of free speech and overturned the smaller panel's ruling, Brooke said.

"The (Redondo Beach) Ordinance is not narrowly tailored because it regulates significantly more speech than is necessary to achieve the City's purpose of improving traffic safety and traffic flow at two major Redondo Beach intersections, and the City could have achieved these goals through less restrictive measures, such as the enforcement of existing traffic laws and regulations," one of the 9th Circuit judges wrote for the majority. "Because the Ordinance does not constitute a reasonable regulation of the time, place, or manner of speaking, it is (on its face) unconstitutional."

A spokeswoman for Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange's office said Tuesday that office would not have a comment on the filing by HICA attorneys.

The 9th Circuit's opinion wasn't unanimous. In a strongly worded dissenting opinion, 9th Circuit Chief Judge Alex Kozinski called the decision to strike down the Redondo Beach ordinance by the majority of his colleagues "demonstrably, egregiously, recklessly wrong." Kozinski stated that the Redondo Beach law has had a serious problem with day laborers crowding sidewalks and street corners soliciting work from passing motorists. The day laborers seeking work have littered, urinated, vandalized property, harrassed females and disrupted traffic, he stated.

In another filing in the Alabama immigration case on Monday, attorneys for HICA and the other groups also submitted what they say is additional evidence of how Alabama's immigration law could have an effect on state residents.

The Montgomery Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board began enforcing a section of the new law on Sept. 1 by requiring new applicants for service to first prove they are legally in the United States, according to the filing. The water board suspended the policy after being notified that Blackburn had temporarily suspended implementation of the state law.

Allgood Water Works also posted a sign on its office that "to be compliant with new laws concerning immigration, you must have an Alabama driver's license or an Alabama picture ID card on file at this office before Sept. 29 or you may lose water service."

The court filing also cites a newspaper story that says the probate office in Houston County will enforce a section of the new state law by requiring immigrants to prove they are lawfully in the country before entering into any probate transactions.

Brooke said the information on the water works and probate policies was filed in the case "to show just how harmful this law is."

"This is new evidence that we didn't have at the time of the Aug. 24 hearing of what the impact the law would have," Brooke said.

Join the conversation, add a comment or email: kfaulk@bhamnews.com

Want to know more:



Alabama defends immigration law in court filing





Rainy Day Patriots hold rally in favor of Alabama's immigration law (with video)