Class Action Filed Against Tennessee’s “Certificate For Driving” Law; DL-Related Litigation Pending In Other States

IMMIGRANTS & PUBLIC BENEFITS

Driver's Licenses

Class action filed against Tennessee’s “certificate for driving” law; DL-related litigation pending in other states
Immigrants' Rights Update, Vol. 18, No. 5, August 9, 2004

Tennessee’s new “certificate for driving” has been challenged in a lawsuit filed by the League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) and several Tennessee residents against the state’s governor, the commissioner of the Tennessee Dept. of Safety (TDOS), and two of the TDOS’s employees (League of Latin American Citizens (LULAC) et al. v. Bredesen et al., No. 3:04-613 (U.S.D.C. Middle Dist. Tenn. 2004)). Under a law that went into effect on July 1, 2004, only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents may obtain a regular Tennessee driver’s license, while nonimmigrant non–U.S. citizens (e.g., people who are in the U.S. on student or temporary work visas) and undocumented persons must obtain a certificate for driving in order to drive legally. (For more background on this law, see “New Tennessee Law Creates ‘Driving Certificate’ for Most Noncitizens,” p. 3 of this issue.)

The certificate states on its face, in red lettering on a white background: “for driving purposes only. not valid for identification.” The TDOS began issuing it one year after Tennessee passed a law banning acceptance of the Mexican matrícula consular as proof of driver’s license applicants’ identification. The caveat against the certificate being used as ID puts Tennessee drivers who do not have any other form of officially recognized ID in a bind. Under Tennessee law, persons charged with traffic violations are entitled to receive a citation in lieu of arrest if they can present satisfactory evidence of their identification. Drivers who have only a certificate for driving risk being arrested if the police stop them for a traffic violation. Some jurisdictions within Tennessee have indicated that their officers will accept the certificate as proof of identification for the purpose of issuing driving citations, while others have said their officers will not. As a result, certificate-holders cannot be sure, when they are pulled over by a police officer, whether the officer is likely to issue them a simple traffic citation or arrest them.

According to the lawsuit, TDOS employees also have confiscated lawful driver’s licenses, Social Security cards, and immigration and other identification documents from noncitizen driver’s license applicants, judging mistakenly that the documents were false. And in at least one instance, a TDOS employee confiscated documents from a Puerto Rico–born U.S. citizen out of ignorance of the fact that Puerto Ricans are U.S. citizens by birth.

The lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of the certificate-for-driving law, arguing that it establishes an irrebuttable presumption that noncitizens (other than lawful permanent residents) are a threat to homeland security, discriminates against them solely because of their alienage or national origin, and restricts their right to travel. The plaintiffs charge that the provision banning acceptance of the matrícula consular as proof of identity but not banning acceptance of identity cards issued by all other foreign governments, as well as TDOS employees’ seizing of applicants’ immigration and other documents, violates the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also charge that a law which gives police officers virtually complete discretion to determine what constitutes satisfactory evidence of identification is unconstitutionally vague.

The plaintiffs, who are represented by Nashville attorney Jerry Gonzalez, are seeking class action status for the case and reportedly will ask for a preliminary injunction enjoining implementation of the new law.

Criticism of Tennessee’s new law has come from all sides—from immigrants eligible to apply for the certificate, because they fear it will mark them as being undocumented or will be confusing, and from immigration restrictionists, including some Tennessee legislators. According to a July 27, 2004, Los Angeles Times article, about 1,200 of the new cards have been issued since the law took effect on July 1. Other states are likely to consider enacting similar provisions if the new law survives constitutional challenge and attempts to amend or repeal it.

Lawsuits challenging rules that restrict immigrants’ access to driver’s licenses are pending in other states, too:

Noncitizens who have nonimmigrant visas or have applied for lawful permanent residence are challenging Alabama rules that prevent them from taking the driver’s license exam. They allege that the rules conflict with Alabama statutes that do not discriminate against noncitizens, violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and unconstitutionally attempt to regulate immigration, an area preempted by the federal government. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Castro et al. v. Coppage and Alabama Dept. of Public Safety, No. 2:04cv400-W (U.S.D.C. Mid. Dist. Ala.).
In Indiana, two plaintiffs have challenged rules administratively imposed by the Bureau of Motor Vehicles and the Indiana Counter-Terrorism and Security Council requiring that driver’s license applicants provide a Social Security number as well as proof that they are lawfully present in the U.S. These requirements took effect on July 15, 2002. The lawsuit was filed in 2002, and the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment, which are pending. Roe v. Coleman, Marion County Superior Court, Indiana.
A class action lawsuit filed in Iowa also challenges requirements that driver’s license applicants present proof of lawful presence and a Social Security number. The defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and the plaintiffs have appealed to the state supreme court. Each side has filed briefs, and the parties are awaiting a decision. Sanchez et al. v. Iowa et al., No. 04-0176 (Supreme Court of Iowa).

One further instance of driver’s license–related litigation merits mention: In 2002 a coalition of Minnesota groups, which included the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union, the American-Arab Anti Discrimination Committee, Jewish Community Action, the Somali Community of Minnesota, and the Somali Justice Advocacy Center, successfully challenged state requirements that driver’s license applicants present proof of either U.S. citizenship or lawful presence in the U.S. They argued that the state had imposed the requirements without engaging in a formal rulemaking process. The state Dept. of Public Safety then proposed immigrant-related driver’s license restrictions through the formal rulemaking process, which allowed for public participation. The administrative law judge who considered the proposed rules rejected them in large part. However, his decision was overturned by the chief presiding administrative law judge, and the rules requiring that applicants demonstrate lawful presence went into effect.

The National Immigration Law Center will continue to track litigation that challenges state statutes and rules which limit immigrants’ access to driver’s licenses. Please notify Tyler Moran at moran@nilc.org or Joan Friedland at friedland@nilc-dc.org of new cases, existing cases that this article does not mention, or developments in the pending lawsuits.