Nos. 12-1702, 12-1705, 12-1708 ________________________ IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ________________________
FRED
H.
KELLER,
JR.,
ET AL
.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CITY
OF
FREMONT,
ET AL
.
Defendants-Appellees
_______________________ MARIO
MARTINEZ,
JR.,
ET AL
.,
Plaintiffs-Appellants
v. CITY
OF
FREMONT,
ET AL
.,
Defendants-Appellees Caption continued on inside cover
________________________ On Appeal from the United States District Court For the District of Nebraska ________________________
PRINCIPAL BRIEF OF APPELLEES/CROSS-APPELLANTS THE CITY OF FREMONT _______________________
Kris W. Kobach Garrett R. Roe Kobach Law, LLC Immigration Reform Law Institute 4701 N. 130
th
St. 25 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Kansas City, KS 66109 Suite 330-B (913)638-5567 Washington, DC 20001 (202)742-1830
Appellate Case: 12-1702 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2012 Entry ID: 3930232
ii
Caption continued from front cover
_______________________ FRED
H.
KELLER,
JR.,
ET AL
.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. CITY
OF
FREMONT,
ET AL
.
Defendants-Appellants
_______________________ MARIO
MARTINEZ,
JR.,
ET AL
.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees
v. CITY
OF
FREMONT,
ET AL
.,
Defendants-Appellants
_______________________
Appellate Case: 12-1702 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2012 Entry ID: 3930232
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities ................................................................................... vii Statement of the Issues .................................................................................. 1 Statement of the Facts ................................................................................... 2 Summary of the Argument ............................................................................ 8 Argument .................................................................................................... 11 I. Keller Appellants Juana Doe 2 and Juan Doe Lack Standing ............ 11 A. Appellant Juana Doe 2 is Not a Tenant in a “Dwelling Unit” and Therefore Lacks Standing ................................................. 12 B. Appellant Juan Doe Will Never Be Required to Comply with the Ordinance .......................................................................... 14 II. The
Salerno
Rule Disfavoring Facial Challenges Renders Appellants’ Arguments Unsustainable ................................................................. 18 III. The Harboring Provisions of the Ordinance are Not Preempted ........ 20 A. The District Court Correctly Applied the Presumption Against Preemption .............................................................................. 22 B. Appellants Rest their Preemption Claims on One Vacated Opinion and One Split Decision .............................................. 25 C. The District Court Correctly Held that the Ordinance is not a “Regulation of Immigration” .................................................. 28 D. The District Court Correctly Held that the Ordinance is not Field Preempted ...................................................................... 33
Appellate Case: 12-1702 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/10/2012 Entry ID: 3930232
Вознаградите свое любопытство
Все, что вы хотели прочитать.
Когда угодно. Где угодно. На любом устройстве.
Без обязательств. Отменить можно в любой момент.