Thursday, March 27, 2008
NEVADA ATTORNEY GENERAL: US CONSTITUTION ACTUALLY MEANS SOMETHING
The Nevada Attorney General was asked to opine on whether a new rule allowing the Tax Commission to impose fines on employers with business licenses that hire illegally present workers was legal. The answer is no and here's why, according to the opinion:
IRCA preempts state laws imposing civil or criminal sanctions, but does not preempt "licensing or similar laws." The "administrative fine" imposed by AB. 383 is a "civil sanction" which is both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. It is not a licensing or "fitness to do business" law because the Tax Commission has no other authority to act against an employer's business license for immigration-related matters.
Therefore, it is an attempt to impose an additional state sanction on certain businesses that violate the federal law, which is expressly preempted. AB. 383 also conflicts with the comprehensive federal scheme, which already sets maximum monetary sanctions for violations of IRCA.
Hat tip to Peter Ashman in Arizona for sending this. Here's the file.Download Nevada2008_MARCH_NV_AG.pdf
# posted by Greg Siskind @ 11:28 PM
XML newsfeed
archives
April 2007
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
The Nevada Attorney General was asked to opine on whether a new rule allowing the Tax Commission to impose fines on employers with business licenses that hire illegally present workers was legal. The answer is no and here's why, according to the opinion:
IRCA preempts state laws imposing civil or criminal sanctions, but does not preempt "licensing or similar laws." The "administrative fine" imposed by AB. 383 is a "civil sanction" which is both expressly and impliedly preempted by federal law. It is not a licensing or "fitness to do business" law because the Tax Commission has no other authority to act against an employer's business license for immigration-related matters.
Therefore, it is an attempt to impose an additional state sanction on certain businesses that violate the federal law, which is expressly preempted. AB. 383 also conflicts with the comprehensive federal scheme, which already sets maximum monetary sanctions for violations of IRCA.
Hat tip to Peter Ashman in Arizona for sending this. Here's the file.Download Nevada2008_MARCH_NV_AG.pdf
November 2007
December 2007
January 2008
February 2008
March 2008
April 2008
May 2008
June 2008
July 2008
August 2008
September 2008
October 2008
November 2008
December 2008
January 2009
February 2009
March 2009
April 2009
May 2009
June 2009
July 2009
August 2009
September 2009
October 2009
November 2009
December 2009
January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
