Watch a slide show and read all the stories in a series on the immigration of thousands of people from Casa Blanca to Tulsa.

Read all of the Tulsa World’s coverage of House Bill 1804.

Judge rules against bid for a delay

A federal judge denied a request Wednesday to delay HB 1804 from taking effect, clearing the way for enforcement of the state's new illegal-immigration law to begin Thursday.

U.S. District Judge James Payne issued a written order at 6:04 p.m. Wednesday that said the plaintiffs did not introduce any evidence to support their motion for a preliminary injunction.

The law's chief author, state Rep. Randy Terrill, R-Moore, said Wednesday night that Payne's decision "is great news for the citizens and taxpayers of Oklahoma. I couldn't be more thrilled."

Terrill -- who has expressed optimism that the law would withstand any legal challenge -- said the ruling means "the folks on the side of meaningful immigration reform in Oklahoma have been vindicated."

Payne heard arguments Wednesday afternoon during a hearing that drew a standing-room-only crowd to his courtroom in downtown Tulsa.

He subsequently wrote that the plaintiffs, besides putting on no evidence

Payne wrote, "The court cannot conclude that the plaintiffs' right to a preliminary injunction has been clearly and unequivocally established."

The lawsuit as a whole remains alive, but Payne's denial of the injunction means the law goes into effect Thursday.

Charlie Price, a spokesman for Oklahoma Attorney General Drew Edmondson, said Wednesday night that attorneys for Edmondson's office would file a request to dismiss the lawsuit.

The plaintiffs' attorneys, Rohit Sharma of Tulsa and William Sanchez of Miami, Fla., had claimed during Wednesday's hearing that the plaintiffs had shown a likelihood of eventual success on the merits of the lawsuit.

That is one of the factors a court considers when deciding whether to issue a preliminary injunction.

However, Oklahoma Assistant Attorney General M. Daniel Weitman said during the hearing that the plaintiffs had shown no such prospect of succeeding in their claims.

Weitman said the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient prior court decisions in other cases that would back their legal position.

The plaintiffs argued that HB 1804 is the sort of state "regulation" of immigration that is barred by the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution as well as the federal Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Sanchez said that the state created a law that goes beyond federal law.

Allowing Oklahoma to do this would invite a scenario in which all 50 states -- as well as an array of local governments -- could pass their own immigration legislation, he said.

Weitman, however, said Oklahoma is not seeking to regulate immigration.

This is the second attempt to derail the law. The first lawsuit was filed Oct. 15 in Tulsa federal court.

Payne dismissed that suit Oct. 22.

He found that its plaintiffs -- the National Coalition of Latino Clergy, its Oklahoma affiliate, two churches, a restaurant group and a group of anonymous individuals -- could not challenge the law because they could not show that it had damaged them.

The more recent suit includes plaintiffs who had been notified by landlords that they will be evicted unless they can provide a valid driver's license and a valid Social Security number.

These newly added individuals, who are not specified in the suit, have been told that HB 1804 is the reason for the landlords' action, the suit says.

The Rev. Miguel Rivera, the president of the coalition pursuing the Tulsa lawsuit, said Wednesday after the hearing that if the preliminary injunction was denied, the plaintiffs would take the case to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver.

Meanwhile, the state Department of Public Safety announced HB 1804-mandated changes in the rules for people applying for a driver's license or identification card.

First-time license applicants, new residents, licensees looking to upgrade their license class or anyone with an expired license must now supply documented proof of legal presence in the United States.

The rules do not apply to people seeking to renew unexpired licenses.

The license or ID card of a non-citizen will be clearly labeled with the word "temporary" and will be issued for the period of time the person is authorized to be in the U.S., up to four years.

Applicants who do not provide the required documentation will not receive a license or an ID card.

HOUSE BILL 1804

What is it?

A law that goes into effect Thursday that seeks state solutions to illegal immigration.

What does it do?

The law:

• Makes it a state felony to knowingly transport illegal aliens.
• Creates state barriers to hiring illegal immigrants.
• Requires state contractors to check the immigration status of workers after July 1.
• Requires proof of citizenship to receive certain government benefits.

Who’s for it?

The law was written by state Rep. Randy Terrill, RMoore, and sponsored by state Sen. Jim Williamson, RTulsa. It passed the state House on a 88-9 vote and the Senate on a 41-6 vote. Gov. Brad Henry signed the bill. The same month that Henry signed the law, an Oklahoma Poll, conducted for the Tulsa World and KOTV, found that one in 10 Oklahoma voters identified illegal immigration as the state’s most pressing problem. Only education was identified more commonly as the state’s priority.

Who’s against it?

Some religious leaders have said the law is wrong. Attorneys for Hispanic groups argue that it is unconstitutional and are challenging it in federal court. Some businessmen have said the law is a bad idea economically.

What happened Wednesday?

U.S. District Judge James Payne rejected a request for a preliminary injunction that would have blocked the law.

The law took effect at midnight.

Opponents of the law protested at the civic center. Catholic Bishop Edward J. Slattery conducted a Mass in support of immigrants.

What happens next?

A rally against the law is set for noon Thursday at the state Capitol. A lawsuit challenging the law’s constitutionality is still pending before Payne. Although he rejected the requested injunction, he has yet to rule on the merits of the case. He has asked for more written arguments from both sides. A ruling either way could be appealed.

Where can I learn more?

Read all of the Tulsa World’s past stories on the issue and the law itself at www.tulsaworld.com/hb1804

David Harper 581-8359
david.harper@tulsaworld.com