International Legal Updates Carlin Moore American University Washington College of Law

Human Rights Brief Volume 16 | Issue 1 Article 7 2008 International Legal Updates Carlin Moore American University Washington College of Law Bryan Bach American University Washington College of Law Megan Chapman American University Washington College of Law Soumya Venkatesh American University Washington College of Law Kate Kovarovic American University Washington College of Law See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief Part of the Human Rights Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Moore, Carlin, Bryan Bach, Megan Chapman, Soumya Venkatesh, Kate Kovarovic, Angad Singh, and Hellia Kanzi. "International Legal Updates." Human Rights Brief 16, no.1 (2008): 33-43. This Column is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Authors Carlin Moore, Bryan Bach, Megan Chapman, Soumya Venkatesh, Kate Kovarovic, Angad Singh, and Hellia Kanzi This column is available in Human Rights Brief: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol16/iss1/7 Moore et al.: International Legal Updates INTERNATIONAL LEGAL UPDATES UNITED STATE S major life activities include, but are not immigration-related measures in the last limited to, caring for oneself, perform- year. While some states are passing stricter U.S. Congress Overturns U.S. ing manual tasks, seeing, hearing, eating, laws enforcing current federal laws, others Supreme Court’s Interpretation of sleeping, walking, standing, lifting, bend- are passing more lenient laws that protect “Disability” ing, speaking, breathing, learning, reading, illegal immigrants’ rights. The American Disabilities Act Amend- concentrating, thinking, communicating, Like many states looking to curb ille- ments Act of 2008 (ADAAA) takes effect and working.” Under the ADAAA, the gal immigration, Tennessee’s legislature on January 1, 2009. The Americans with qualifying impairment does not need to revoked laws granting illegal immigrants Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) prohibits limit more than one major life activity driving certificates and has allowed law employers, among others, from discrimi- and can be episodic or in remission. The enforcement officers to act as state immi- nating against individuals with disabilities, ADAAA eliminates the Court’s interpre- gration police. Tennessee and other states, thus preventing their exclusion from soci- tation that an individual’s disability must such as Colorado, have passed laws that ety. Under the ADA, “disability” is a physi- restrict them from either a class of jobs or suspend or revoke business licenses of cal or mental impairment that substantially a broad range of jobs. The ADAAA also employers who knowingly hire illegal limits one or more major life activities. overrides the Court by prohibiting lower immigrants. One of the toughest, the Okla- Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court courts from considering mitigating or cor- homa Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act (the Court) strictly interpreted the meaning rective measures in their analysis. of 2007, makes it a felony to transport or of “disability,” prohibiting many individu- Although some worry that the ADAAA shelter illegal immigrants. It denies illegal als from receiving the benefits the ADA might increase lawsuits by increasing the immigrants access to driver’s licenses and provides. The ADAAA amends the ADA quantity of individuals qualifying as dis- public benefits such as rental assistance and directly overturns the U.S. Supreme abled, the clarified definitions will likely and fuel subsidies. It also forces govern- Court’s strict interpretation. lead to a decrease in litigation. The ADAAA ment contractors to check new employees Prior to the ADAAA, the Court’s two provides a clear, national mandate to fol- against a federal system called E-Verify to most significant cases regarding the ADA low which will prevent misinterpretations make sure they are legally eligible to work, were Sutton v. United Airlines and Toyota by employers that previously made com- with the penalty of losing their contracts Motor Manufacturing, Kentucky, Inc. v. pliance difficult. The ADAAA will protect for noncompliance. Currently, nine states Williams, which greatly limited the defi- individuals with conditions not previously require employers and state agencies to use nition of disability. The Court held that covered, such as carpal tunnel, depression, the E-Verify system. State Representative major life activities only included those and learning disabilities. Representatives Randy Terrill, who authored the Oklahoma activities of central importance to daily life Steny Hoyer and James Sensenbrenner, bill, argues that the bill saves taxpayers’ such as working. The use of corrective or two of the ADAAA’s sponsors, said in a money by not subsidizing services for ille- mitigating measures affected the Court’s joint statement, “With the passage of the gal immigrants. evaluation of whether an individual had a ADA Amendments Act . today, we Not only has Oklahoma’s bill negatively substantial limitation of a major life activ- ensure that the ADA’s promise for people affected the state economy, but it also rep- ity. For example, the Court did not con- with disabilities will be finally fulfilled. resents a far-reaching attempt to expand sider a person who was severely myopic Our expectation is that this law will afford the immigration enforcement power of disabled, such as in Sutton v. United Air- people with disabilities the freedom to states. Businesses, especially those in the lines, because that person could correct the participate in our community, free from agriculture industry, face worker shortages visual impairment. The Court further nar- discrimination and its segregating effects because they cannot employ anyone of rowed the definition of disability, requir- that we sought to achieve with the original unknown legal status. The resulting delays ing that the individual be significantly ADA.” in production particularly affect consumers restricted from performing either a class of in the agriculture and construction indus- jobs or a broad range of jobs as compared States Passing Conflicting tries. Construction industry leaders argue to the average person with comparable Immigration Laws that raised wages in Oklahoma, a state with training, skills, and abilities. The U.S. federal government has failed low unemployment, would lead to a net The ADAAA explicitly rejects the to significantly reform federal immigra- loss of jobs as some businesses close due to Court’s demanding standards to restore the tion laws to address the nation’s problem competition with other states allowing less original protection intended by Congress. with illegal immigration. State govern- stringent hiring practices. As businesses The ADAAA clarifies the definition of ments argue that the lack of national lead- struggle to adjust to the new law, legal disability, redefining “major life activity” ership has left them no other choice but immigrants and citizens have also lost jobs. and revising other aspects of the law. The to begin passing their own laws. Legisla- Many illegal immigrants and their family ADAAA specifies that, “in general . tures in 46 states have adopted over 244 members who are legal immigrants or U.S. 33 Published by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 2008 1 Human Rights Brief, Vol. 16, Iss. 1 [2008], Art. 7 citizens are leaving Oklahoma in order to states must regulate immigration issues on to a Life Free of Violence (Ley General find a safer haven in nearby states such as their own — some being entirely contra- de Acceso de las Mujeres a un Vida Libre Missouri and Arkansas. dictory — the harder it will be to create de Violencia). The law requires “federal consensus in favor of uniform rules. Others and local authorities to prevent, punish Missouri and Arkansas are not the argue that the increase in state legislation and eradicate violence against women.” only states with more lenient immigration provides an opportunity for the federal The law also creates several defined cat- laws. To prevent employers from taking government to observe and study what egories of violence, including domestic, national origin into account in their hir- does and does not work. The problem with workplace, institutional, and gender-based ing decisions, Illinois recently attempted this “laboratory” approach is that it takes violence. Federal, state, and municipal to pass a law prohibiting businesses from time; as more time passes and states con- governments are also charged with specific using E-Verify to check the legal status tinue to take conflicting approaches, creat- responsibilities under the law. of employees. Advocates of the Illinois ing uniform federal legislation becomes law argue that the E-Verify system is more difficult. Additionally, legal battles Continued violence, however, has led flawed and inaccurate; legal immigrants are already taking place between the fed- many to conclude that Mexican authorities and citizens can lose their jobs if the eral government and states whose laws do not take the issue seriously. Amnesty system discovers any Social Security inac- conflict with

Load more