|
In an Aug. 12, 2005, decision, the Indiana
Court of Appeals rejected Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV)
requirements that in effect compelled driver's license applicants to
prove that they had lawful immigration status. The plaintiffs in the
class action lawsuit that resulted in the decision were undocumented
immigrants.
On July 12, 2002, the BMV announced new
identification requirements for obtaining driver's licenses, permits,
and identification cards. Under the new rule, applicants were required
to provide documentation of U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration
status, as well as proof that they had a valid Social Security number (SSN).
The lawsuit's plaintiffs challenged the rule, arguing that it "makes it
impossible for certain persons to obtain a license, permit or state
identification, regardless of proof of identity."
The trial court ruled that the plaintiffs did
not have standing to bring the lawsuit because they did not have SSNs
and were therefore not eligible for driver's licenses. The defendant,
the BMV commissioner, argued on appeal that Indiana law requires
applicants to present an SSN and that the plaintiffs' failure to comply,
rather than the new identification rules, caused their licenses to be
denied. The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that under Indiana law an
SSN is not required, as made clear by Indiana rules providing for a
special procedure to obtain a license when the applicant has not been
issued one.
The appellate court also rejected the trial
judge's ruling that the plaintiffs could not challenge the new rules
because they may have used false SSNs and therefore came to court with
"unclean hands." The court concluded that the plaintiffs' possible use
of false SSNs was not the basis of the denial, and, in any event,
presentation of an SSN was not required under Indiana law.
Finally, the Court of Appeals ruled that the
new rules violated the Indiana Administrative Rules and Procedures Act
because the BMV issued the rule without (1) publishing notice of intent
to adopt rules or notice of hearing, or (2) conducting a public hearing
on the proposed rule, or (3) formally adopting the rule, or (4)
obtaining approval of the rule from the attorney general and the
governor, or (5) submitting the rule to the secretary of state for
filing. The court declined to reach the plaintiffs' argument that even
if the BMV had issued the rule properly, the rule would exceed statutory
requirements and violate the Equal Protection, Due Process, and
Supremacy Clauses of the U.S. Constitution.
The plaintiffs in the case were represented by
the Indiana Civil Liberties Union and private counsel. Advocates in
Indiana report that it is likely that the BMV will issue formal
regulations, rather than appealing the court's decision. The decision
is available at
www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/08120503nhv.pdf.
Villegas v. Silverman, 2005 Ind. App. LEXIS 1451 (2005).
--By
Joan Friedland, NILC staff
attorney
|
