Today, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected a request to reconsider its earlier ruling that Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s denial of driver’s licenses to certain young immigrants is unconstitutional.
“The Ninth Circuit, district court, and federal government all agree: Arizona’s denial of driver’s licenses to hardworking young immigrants violates our Constitution,” said Jennifer Chang Newell, staff attorney with the ACLU’s Immigrants’ Rights Project.
For more than two years, the plaintiffs in this case have fought for the right to earn driver’s licenses.
In August of 2012, Brewer issued an order specifically denying licenses to young immigrants who are granted permission to live and work in the U.S. under the DACA program. The National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), and the ACLU of Arizona challenged the executive order and related policies in court, alleging that the ban violates DACA recipients’ constitutional right to equal protection under the law as well as the principles of federal supremacy in the area of immigration policy and law.
After a federal district court held, in May 2013, that Arizona’s policy likely constituted unconstitutional discrimination, the state sought to expand its denial of licenses to additional categories of immigrants.
In July 2014, the Ninth Circuit determined that Brewer’s policy was likely to be found unconstitutional and approved a preliminary injunction to allow immigrant youth to apply for licenses. This injunction was placed on hold after Arizona requested rehearing en banc, which would have provided the state an opportunity to make their arguments in front of an 11-judge panel.
Before denying Arizona’s rehearing request, the court had invited the United States to share its views on whether the case should be reheard. In September, the United States filed a brief with the court agreeing that Arizona’s policy is unconstitutional and opposing its rehearing request.
The Court’s Order reads:
The panel has voted to deny the petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc.
The full court was advised of the petition for rehearing en banc. No judge requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. Fed. R. App. P. 35.
The petitions for rehearing and rehearing en banc are DENIED. No further petitions will be entertained.