A federal appeals court rejected Canyon County's effort to use federal racketeering law to sue four agri-businesses and the former head of the Idaho Migrant Council for allegedly hiring and helping undocumented immigrants.
Attorneys for the defendants say they are delighted, but not surprised, that the county's suit under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act won't go to trial. A different outcome, one said, "would have sent shockwaves through corporate America."
County commissioners "are still weighing their options," spokeswoman Angie Sillonis said Monday. They have consulted their attorney and are expected to decide by the end of this week whether to accept the ruling, file a petition asking for a rehearing or take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
"They're both pretty long shots," federal courts expert Carl Tobias said of the county's remaining appeal options.
The 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Friday "the county had not satisfied the statutory requirements to even get into court," said Tobias, a law professor at Virginia's University of Richmond.
A three-judge 9th Circuit panel upheld U.S. District Judge Edward Lodge's December 2005 dismissal of the county's suit against Syngenta Seeds, Sorrento Lactalis, Swift Beef, Harris Moran Seed and former IMC director Albert Pacheco.
Commissioners alleged that actions by the businesses and Pacheco ultimately cost Canyon County millions of dollars in indigent medical care, legal services and other social services for people who are in the county illegally. Their suit contends that the businesses knowingly hired undocumented workers and that Pacheco directed Migrant Council staff to help undocumented immigrants get public housing and file false applications for the county's indigent medical assistance fund.
Attorneys for the businesses and Pacheco deny those allegations, but they won't have to argue the facts in court because 9th Circuit judges agreed with Judge Lodge that the county doesn't meet the requirements to pursue the suit under RICO.
The judges ruled that Canyon County did not prove any harm beyond increased costs of providing governmental services, and they could not sue to recoup the costs of being a local government. Also, the court ruled, there was no proven link between the defendants' alleged actions and the county's increased costs.
"It's a very significant legal ruling," said Marie Yeates, the Texas-based attorney for Swift Beef Co. Basically, she said, the court found that "government entities should not be permitted to put employers through this type of trial."
Steve Cottreau, Washington D.C.-based attorney for Sorrento Lactalis, blasted the county's lawsuit as "shockingly devoid of almost any factual detail." He said the cheese factory and other employers do their best to comply with federal immigration law.
Information on how much the county has spent to pursue the RICO suit was not available Monday. After the original suit was dismissed in U.S. District Court near the end of 2005, former Commissioner Robert Vasquez said the case had cost the county $20,000 up to that point and estimated an appeal would cost $2,000 more.
Tobias said he finds the county's approach - trying to combat the costs of illegal immigration by using a law designed to control organized crime -very interesting, although ultimately unsuccessful.
"People have been creative with RICO, but I had never seen it used in that context," Tobias said.
Kristin Rodine: 377-6447
