Sticking Hazleton with the bill?

Various attorneys will seek compensation from Hazleton for expenses they incurred in fighting the city’s illegal immigration ordinances.

In his decision Thursday, U.S. District Judge James Munley struck down the city’s Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

The decision prevents enforcement of both the Relief Act, which would fine landlords and suspend licenses of businesses found to house or hire illegal immigrants, and a related ordinance that would require anyone who rents a home or apartment in the city to prove citizenship or lawful residency status.

Attorneys Thomas Wilkinson and Thomas Fiddler of Cozen O’Connor, one of the groups that represented the plaintiffs, tabulate their costs in excess of $1 million, but total fees and costs will take approximately 10 days to file, Wilkinson said.

These legal fees are separate from the compensation that could be sought by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund, and several other legal counsels that were involved, Wilkinson said.

Mary Catherine Roeper, ACLU staff attorney in the Philadelphia office, anticipates the ACLU will file a fee petition.

Representatives of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund could not be reached for comment.

Lawyers will file a fee petition within 14 days, and it is possible they might seek payment collectively. As a practical matter, compensation ordered by the court will likely be postponed while Hazleton continues its appeal, Fiddler said.

Mayor Lou Barletta, a Republican, received more than $360,000 in donations for the city’s defense. He vows to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.

“We’ve spent $155,000 in all costs, including our legal fees,” Barletta said.

As the decision neared this week, more support for Barletta’s defense poured in on the Web site, www.smalltowndefenders.com.

“We can’t even begin to tally the contributions that have come in during the last few days, it’s been nonstop from people all over the country,” he said.

Barletta said that people have walked into City Hall to drop off checks, providing support that will have to persist for the mayor to continue his controversial fight against illegal immigration.

“There is no question it’s going to take more money,” Barletta said. “I think the ACLU’s hope was that we would back down, but we will continue to fight.”

Munley’s decision called the Hazleton ordinance a violation of the U.S. Constitution supremacy clause, and said that legislation in matters like immigration are under the auspices of the federal government.

While Munley’s opinion would seem to shut the door to any appeal, David Martin, University of Virginia research professor of civil liberties and human rights, said that there is a definite case in Barletta’s claim.

“It’s certainly a legitimately contested point,” Martin said. “A few years back the office of legal counsel in the Justice Department issued an opinion saying that there is room for local authorities to enforce immigration laws if given that power by local government.”

An authority on asylum, refugee and immigration issues, Martin has chaired the immigration section of the Association of American Law Schools and served as general counsel for the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service from 1995-98. He had no opinion, however, on who would eventually win this landmark court battle.

“The immigration issue has been contested enough that the lengthy and learned opinion of one judge is not going to be the last word on this issue,” he said.

The decision will be appealed by Hazleton in the Third Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Philadelphia.