Supreme Court Leaves Ruling Blocking Landlords From Renting to Illegal Immigrants Standing
Decline to take up cases
The US Supreme Court on Monday let stand two appeals court decisions blocking local ordinances that sought to bar landlords from renting housing to illegal immigrants and to prevent employers from hiring workers who lack proper immigration authorization.
In both cases, the lower courts ruled that the ordinances are preempted by federal immigration statutes and national policies set by the Obama administration.
The cases stem from local measures passed by the City of Hazelton, Pa., and the City of Farmers Branch, Texas.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Very convoluted headline. It provides the appearance that the local laws blocking renting to illegals were left standing, which is not what the ruling did.
my buddy’s step-mother makes $63 /hr on the computer . She has been fired from work for ten months but last month her payment was $17491 just working on the computer for a few hours. have a peek here………..http://www.Works23.us
CurtisIs87 is right — rewrite the hed, for crying out loud.
You need better editors. Call me!
Reason editors must be trying to prove they don’t read the comments again…
I did NOT say that I negate the double negatives of my negative (AND nag-ative, I MIGHT ADD) political opponents, nor did I EVER intend to negate the inverted negativities of those of which I negated earlier!!!! Can I not-NOT-NOT be MORE not-clear about this whole THANG!?!?!? NAG-atively Yers, SQRLSY One
Is the answer yes or no?
I’m still confused. Are they allowed to rent to the people who shouldn’t be there or not?