Nebraska city's immigration law valid, appeals court rules
OMAHA — An eastern Nebraska city's ordinance that bans employing or renting property to people who are not in America legally is valid, a federal appeals panel ruled on Friday, opening the door for Freemont to begin enforcing its law.
In 2010, voters in the city of about 26,000 approved the measure. The ordinance also required businesses to use federal E-verify software to check on potential employees.
Last year, U.S. District Judge Laurie Smith Camp ruled that the part of the 2010 ordinance denying housing permits to those not in the country legally is discriminatory and interferes with federal law.
Two judges of a three-member panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that reasoning, leading the majority to reverse the ruling and vacate the lower court's injunction against that part of the ordinance.
Judge James Loken wrote that the plaintiffs — several U.S.-born Latino home renters and a Fremont landlord — failed to show the law was intended to discriminate against Latinos or that it intrudes on federal law.
Judge Steven Colloton agreed with the reversal and vacating of the injunction but said the plaintiffs lacked standing in the case, noting that they did not show how they had been harmed by Fremont's law.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Unhappiness over plan to unfreeze billions in oil revenue for Iran threatens nuclear bill in Senate
- ‘Organic’ tag on water-raised produce raises ire
- House demands details of Taliban detainees swap for Bergdahl
- Florida fraternity members spit on disabled veterans at retreat
- Bomb threat clears Statue of Liberty
- Hostility at VA lingers, panel told
- 15 buffalo that escaped from farm killed in upstate N.Y.
- HIV cases tied to drug use multiply daily in Indiana
- Holder delivers farewell address
- Magma chamber spied under Yellowstone volcano
- Footage of protesters walking on flag sparks strife at Georgia university