Toobin: What does Arizona immigration ruling mean?

Courtesy of CNN.COM

A federal judge has granted an injunction blocking enforcement of parts of a controversial immigration law in Arizona that is scheduled to go into effect Thursday.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled the federal government "is likely to succeed" in its challenge of the legality of one of the most controversial sections of the Arizona law. That provision required police to "make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person is in the United States illegally.

Jeffrey Toobin, CNN’s senior legal analyst, spoke with T.J. Holmes on "CNN Newsroom" and offered his immediate reaction to the ruling and what it could mean for Arizona and other states.

What exactly did the judge rule?

The judge ruled that certain provisions are unconstitutional, but parts of the law she approved. The most controversial of which is the duty forced on law enforcement officers to determine if immigrants are people reasonably suspected of being illegal are in fact illegal. That has been struck down temporarily.

The judge said this – the requirement of law enforcement officials to essentially make all possibly illegal immigrants show their papers – is a violation of the separation of powers, a violation of federal sovereignty and federal control of immigration matters.

That argument was the one maintained by the Obama administration. Many civil rights groups argued it was simply discriminatory towards Hispanics.

The judge struck down the law on the ground that it was a violation of the federal control of immigration matters. That’s why the controversial provision at least for the time being will not go into effect.

So what happens now?

Some of it will have to do with the legal strategy followed by the state of Arizona here. The state of Arizona could ask the judge to revisit the issue after more fact-finding. They could also go directly to the Court of Appeals – which is the next up in the federal court structure.

I think this is a case very much destined for United States Supreme Court. It is the kind of big issue relating to the responsibilities of state versus federal government on a very important matter, so it’s likely, given how much attention this law received that other states will be passing similar laws. I think the Supreme Court will get involved probably next year. The issue that’s up in the air is will the law be in effect while the appeals process goes forward? At the moment the answer is no – at least this one provision. But certainly an appeals process will begin. If not immediately, then soon

Posted August 31st, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Immigration | | 0 Comments

Caterpillar Ready to Ink $16.5M Fee Suit Settlement

November 9, 2009 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Heavy equipment manufacturer Caterpillar Inc. has agreed to a $16.5-million settlement of an excessive fee lawsuit in federal court in Illinois.

A company newsletter said the September 2006 suit leveled the fiduciary breach charges against Caterpillar regarding its four 401(k) plans for workers and retirees.

According to the announcement, the net proceeds of the settlement will be allocated to participant accounts and former participants based generally upon the number of years a participant maintained an account balance in one or more of the plans.

This will happen after court-approved attorney’s fees and expenses of settlement administration have been deducted. Distributions would begin after U.S. District Judge Joe Billy McDade of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois grants final approval of the settlement, and all appeals have been pursued.

Even though one of the breach claims had to do with the actions of Caterpillar Investment Management Ltd. (CIML), formerly a Caterpillar subsidiary, the company said CIML was sold in 2006 before the suit was filed.  As a result, in May 2006, the Preferred Funds, advised by CIML, were replaced with other investment options, including separate accounts.

The suit also alleged Caterpillar kept too much cash in the company stock fund in the 401(k) plans.

Caterpillar contended in its statement that it had complied with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and that it only agreed to the settlement because it thought the move would be in the best interests of the company and its shareholders.

The Web statement said the company will increase employee communication about 401(k) investment options and associated fees, and Evercore Trust Company will independently monitor the plans during a two-year settlement period.

Also, during the two-year period, Caterpillar will continue to limit its cash holdings in the company stock fund investment option, and will not include retail mutual funds as core investment options in the plans. The statement said that if service contracts come up for renewal, Caterpillar will undertake a request for proposal.

Fred Schneyer
editors@plansponsor.com

Posted August 16th, 2010 by Jessica Spinks - Posted in Insurance Fraud | | 0 Comments