A Labor-Based Response to ICE’s Worksite Raids

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Workplace raids have become an important part of the Trump administration’s mass deportations agenda. The recent ICE raid at a Hyundai facility in Georgia made headlines not only because of its near-unprecedented scale—nearly 500 Korean workers were arrested—but also because of its unusual targeting of visa holders hailing from a key U.S. ally. But ICE enforcement at the places where immigrants work has been routine over the past year, since the government stopped following a Biden-era policy against the practice. Federal agents have in some instances opted for indiscriminate arrests in places where they think undocumented immigrants tend to gather, such as Home Depot parking lots and other meeting places for day laborers. Workplace raids offer a potentially more targeted tool to identify immigrants without legal status, since ICE can seek to verify work authorization information collected by employers.

In this enforcement context, some immigrant workers have begun taking action to protect themselves. Last month, dairy workers in Wisconsin went on strike to oppose their employer’s enrollment in E-Verify—a federal database that double-checks employees’ work authorization, which several workers feared would put them out of a job. The largely Latino workforce of a packaging plant in Chicago similarly organized a strike to demand, among other things, that their bosses refuse to allow ICE onto the premises without a warrant. These efforts suggest that collective bargaining may provide workers with a way to resist the mass deportation campaign.

The law is less hostile to these demands by immigrant workers—even undocumented workers—than one might think. To be sure, federal immigration law prohibits employers from hiring employees without work authorization, including most undocumented immigrants. But when immigrants are employed despite this prohibition, they are still entitled to virtually all the protections of federal and state labor and employment law. Even though the Supreme Court has held that undocumented workers cannot receive backpay remedies for unfair labor practices, they can still seek other remedies under the National Labor Relations Act. As an example, the National Labor Relations Board, in a 2018 case called Ruprecht Co., found an employer’s unilateral decision to enroll in E-Verify while union negotiations were pending to be an unfair labor practice, ordering the employer to withdraw from the program.

At the same time, immigrant workers face some important hurdles in demanding that their employers protect them from ICE enforcement. Notably, the NLRA does not apply to agricultural workers or independent contractors, which together account for many of the most common occupations of undocumented immigrants. But even for unionized workers covered by the NLRA, the Trump administration—aided by the Supreme Court’s emergency docket—has crippled the government’s ability to enforce federal labor law, firing multiple members of the NLRB and thereby depriving it of a quorum. Both the non-unionized dairy farm workers in Wisconsin and the unionized packaging workers in Chicago may find it challenging to enforce their rights against intransigent employers.

State law may be able to fill in the gaps in immigrant labor protections created by both the exclusions in federal labor law as written and the dismantling of federal labor law in practice. Some states have already taken steps to shield immigrants from workplace enforcement. Illinois, for example, recently enacted a law forbidding employers from using E-Verify to fire or conduct immigration checks on current employees. A 2018 California law went even further, declaring it a civil offense for an employer to provide voluntary consent for immigration enforcement agents to enter nonpublic workplace areas without a warrant. These direct state regulations of employers provide rights to immigrant workers who—whether because their union organizing is not protected by labor law, or because they have not successfully won a union contract—have not secured these rights through their own collective bargaining.

Framing these kinds of state regulations as protections for collective bargaining may also open up new legal possibilities. As labor law scholars including Gali Racabi and Alvin Velazquez have argued, a moribund national labor regime under the NLRA may free state labor protections from federal preemption. Some state law already fills gaps created by the federal statute—Wisconsin law, for example, grants a right to unionize free of agricultural or any other sector-specific exemptions. States seeking to insulate their immigrant residents from workplace enforcement might consider using state labor law to codify the NLRB’s approach in treating employers’ unilateral enrollment in E-Verify or other cooperation with ICE operations during union negotiations as unfair labor practices. This labor-based approach would only apply to workers actively seeking to form unions and bargain with their employers. But combined with expanded access to union rights in general, these immigration-specific protections could help ensure that employers cannot use federal enforcement to disrupt the collective bargaining process.

Labor law may also compensate for the legal deficiencies of other methods states have used to protect immigrant workers form ICE enforcement. Soon after California enacted its 2018 law barring employers from consenting to warrantless raids, the first Trump administration sued. Federal courts granted the government’s request to enjoin the law, finding that it violated the intergovernmental immunity doctrine. Even though the law on its face only regulated private employers, courts treated it as impermissible discrimination against private actors who choose to interact with the Department of Homeland Security. State labor regulations might avoid the intergovernmental immunity issue by defining the unfair labor practice more broadly, covering any unilateral choice by employers to grant state or federal law enforcement access to nonpublic workspaces. The labor-based approach also operates on a different premise. Rather than simply penalizing employers for allowing ICE to enter their workplaces in all circumstances, this approach would instead make immigration enforcement a required subject of union negotiations. These laws would not make the choice to interact with ICE per se unlawful, as long as this choice is made with workers’ input.

Lawmakers in many states have expressed concern about the impact of aggressive ICE enforcement on immigrants seeking to earn a living, as well as on the industries and communities in which they work. Meanwhile, immigrant workers have begun to advocate for themselves by demanding that their employers refrain from voluntary cooperation with ICE. As federal immigration enforcement ramps up while federal labor enforcement winds down, states have an opportunity to devise new labor law tools to protect and empower immigrants at work.

Continue ReadingA Labor-Based Response to ICE’s Worksite Raids

Will Wisconsin Chart Its Own Course on Environmental Issues?

The exterior of the U.S. Supreme Court building with white stone columns and a white facade.

In a series of recent cases, the United States Supreme Court has sharply restricted the power of the United States Environmental Protection Agency to effectively exercise jurisdiction over natural resources within the states. These include West Virginia v. EPA (endorsing the “major questions doctrine” and restricting EPA’s power to require cleaner energy generation without clear congressional authorization); Sackett v. EPA (limiting the scope of EPA’s authority over “waters of the United States,” and eliminating federal authority over many wetlands); Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (overruling the Chevron doctrine of deferring to agency interpretations of law in most circumstances); SEC v. Jarkesy (holding that agencies may not employ in-house tribunals, in lieu of jury trials, when seeking civil penalties); and Corner Post v. Board of Governors, FRS (pausing the statute of limitations to challenge agency regulations until the plaintiff suffers injury).

The shift away from federal power elevates the role states can play in charting a course on environmental issues. The Sackett Court emphasized that states, not the EPA, hold the “primary responsibilities and rights . . . to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution” and “to plan the development and use . . . of land and water resources.” Some evidence supports the idea that states will be eager to fill gaps in federal regulation of the environment and corresponding enforcement activities. Wisconsin, for example, has a rich history of water law. All the way back in 1853, the Wisconsin Supreme Court endorsed the principle that “if [a] stream is navigable in fact, the public have the right to use it for the purposes of navigation, and the right of the owner [of abutting land] is subject to the public easement.” Jones v. Pettibone, 2 Wis. 308 (1853). In the 20th century, the state became a national leader in conservation and was at the vanguard of the development of the public trust doctrine.

Even in the 21st century, Wisconsin authorities have sometimes stepped in to protect the state’s natural resources when federal jurisdiction receded. In 2001, for example, the Supreme Court invalidated the “migratory bird rule,” under which federal agencies had exercised jurisdiction over pollutant discharges into certain isolated intrastate waters. The decision, Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, removed a sizeable percentage of wetlands from federal protection. The Wisconsin Legislature acted almost instantly, taking only a few months to enable state control over such discharges by creating a new category of “nonfederal wetlands.” The state law expressly addressed the Supreme Court’s decision. By its terms, it applies when discharges into wetlands are determined “not to be subject to regulation under [the federal Clean Water Act] due to the decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers . . . or any subsequent interpretations of that decision by a federal agency or by a federal district or federal appellate court that applies to wetlands located in this state.” Wis. Stat. 281.36(1m)(a)1 (as created by 2001 Wisconsin Act 6). The act effectively restored protection of wetlands that the Supreme Court removed from federal jurisdiction in SWANCC, albeit under state authority. Later, the state implemented an innovative water quality trading program to help curb nonpoint source pollution and meet the state’s aggressive water quality limits for phosphorous pollution. Wisconsin citizens can be proud of the state’s progress in those areas and many others.

But more recent developments are less promising. The ballyhooed “Year of Clean Drinking Water in Wisconsin” was less successful than Governor Evers probably hoped. Similarly, after Assembly Speaker Robin Vos created a “Water Quality Task Force” in 2019, all thirteen of the bills it proposed died in the state Senate. In 2017, the Legislature removed some smaller wetlands from protection under state law, backtracking from the 2001 enactment. And the past few years have been marked by political skirmishes over the power of state agencies to enact groundwater standards for PFAS and other chemicals, disputes over the Department of Natural Resources’ power to require environmental cleanups, and the delayed release of state funds earmarked for remediation activities.

Wisconsin’s uneven record on environmental protection is certainly not unique. But the state–or rather, all the states–are being thrust to the forefront in such matters. Of course, a state will not necessarily regulate anew, or step up enforcement, just because it has the opportunity to do so. And any reckoning with environmental issues will no doubt have to wait until after the November elections currently dominating politics. Whenever the dust settles, it will be interesting to see how states respond in the new era of a somewhat-diminished EPA.

Continue ReadingWill Wisconsin Chart Its Own Course on Environmental Issues?

New Marquette Lawyer Magazine Sees Past Problems as Shedding Light on Future Challenges (Post 1 of 3)

This cover of the summer issue of the Marquette Lawyer. The Summer 2019 issue of Marquette Lawyer features three pairs of stories with an underlying common theme that can be summed up by one of the headlines: “In Search of Better Outcomes.” This issue of the Marquette Law School semiannual magazine overall has a substantial historical orientation, but it also speaks strongly to current realities and issues—as has become even clearer since the magazine hit the streets a few weeks ago. Simply put, learning about the past helps in understanding the present and considering the future. This post takes up one pair of articles: the cover story and a reaction to it.

The cover story, “Dying Constitutionalism and the Fourteenth Amendment,” is an edited version of the Robert F. Boden Lecture given at Marquette Law School in fall 2018, by Ernest A. Young, the Alston & Bird Professor at Duke Law School. While the Fourteenth Amendment later would be crucial to the growth of constitutional protections and the extension of civil rights—the linchpin of America’s “second founding,” as it is sometimes called—Young focuses on the first 75 years after the amendment was ratified in 1868. It was a period of broad suppression of civil rights, particularly those of African Americans—the Fourteenth Amendment not working much to the contrary.

Young’s purpose is not so much historical as jurisprudential: He presents his essay as a cautionary tale about “living constitutionalism,” demonstrating that, while that mode of constitutional interpretation was not the Court’s stated approach in those 75 years, it could have been: For “every one of [living constitutionalism’s] modalities strongly supported the compromise or even abandonment of the amendment’s core purpose of freedom and equality for black Americans.” Simply stated, the history of the use of the amendment is a reminder that “social progress is not inevitable, that social forces can push constitutional meaning in bad as well as good directions, that living can turn into dying constitutionalism if we are not very, very careful,” Young writes.

In a comment on Young’s lecture, David A. Strauss, Gerald Ratner Distinguished Service Professor of Law at the University of Chicago and author of The Living Constitution (Oxford 2012), says that the early failures under the Fourteenth Amendment need to be reckoned with by those who are proponents of living constitutionalism. He writes that Young’s lecture shows that “in the end, there is only so much that the law can do to save a society from its own moral failings.”

A future post will discuss another pair of articles in the magazine that would support the same reaction. Click here to read both Young’s lecture and Strauss’s comment.

Continue ReadingNew Marquette Lawyer Magazine Sees Past Problems as Shedding Light on Future Challenges (Post 1 of 3)