A federal judge today blocked enforcement of employer-related provisions of the state's controversial immigration law, ruling it likely interferes with federal regulations regarding the hiring of unauthorized workers.
Several business groups challenged House Bill 1804 — which has been called the toughest immigration statute in the nation — in federal court in Oklahoma City.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, The State Chamber, the Oklahoma City and Tulsa chambers of commerce, and the Oklahoma restaurant and hotel and lodging associations contend the law places unreasonable burdens on businesses, according to the lawsuit filed Feb. 1 by the National Chamber Litigation Center.
"We applaud the court's decision to delay enforcing these portions of Oklahoma's immigration law," said Robin Conrad, the center's executive vice president. "Through harsh civil penalties, the Oklahoma law unfairly shifts the burden of immigration enforcement from government onto the backs of businesses.
"Piecemeal state legislation is not the answer to our nation's immigration problems."
The groups' lawsuit still is pending in federal court in Oklahoma City, even though U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron agreed to halt enforcement of a provision of the new law that would have required companies to verify the eligibility status of all new employees.
That provision was set to go into effect July 1.
The law’s author, State Rep. Randy Terrill said he was disappointed but not surprised the judge’s ruling.
“Obviously the outcome is not what we had hoped for,” Terrill said. “But she is perhaps the most liberal judge sitting in the Western District. This is the most blatant act of judicial activism. She is clearly acting more like a legislator than a judge.”
Terrill did not argue the merits of the case, but said the judge should have dismissed it on standing. He said if the lawsuit against the employment section of HB 1804 is successful, he will appeal.
Attorney General Drew Edmondson issued this statement: “This is a preliminary injunction, not a final ruling. In her order, the judge writes that ‘the Court finds Plaintiffs have established a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case.’ We will attempt to overcome this hurdle when the matter is set for hearing on the permanent injunction.”
