Full opinion text
DECISION MUNLEY, District Judge. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Preliminary Issues.........................................................487 A. Standing..............................................................487 1. Constitutional standing..............................................487 a. Individual named plaintiffs.......................................488 b. Organizations..................................................491 c. Tenant plaintiffs................................................496 2. Prudential standing.................................................499 B. Anonymous Does ......................................................504 1. Factors favoring anonymity..........................................507 2. Factors favoring disclosure..........................................513 C. Amendments to the ordinances ..........................................515 II. Federal Constitutional Issues................................................517 A. Federal pre-emption....................................................517 1. Employment provisions .............................................518 a. Express pre-emption............................................518 b. Implied pre-emption............................................521 i. Field......................................................521 ii. Conflict....................................................525 2. Tenancy provisions.................................................529 a. Housing illegal aliens............................................529 b. Tenant registration ordinance....................................530 B. Procedural due process.................................................533 1. Employment provisions .............................................533 2. Landlord/tenant....................................................537 C. Equal Protection.......................................................538 D. Privacy rights.........................................................542 III. Federal Statutory Causes of Action...........................................545 A. Fan- Housing Act......................................................545 B. Section 1981 ...........................................................546 IV. State Law Causes of Action..................................................548 A. Pennsylvania municipality law...........................................548 B. Landlord/Tenant Law..................................................552 C. Police powers................... ......................................553 Conclusion............................... ......................................554 Verdict.................................. ......................................555 Appendix................................ ......................................556 This case addresses Defendant City of Hazleton’s authority to enact ordinances that regulate the presence and employment of illegal aliens. Before the court for disposition is plaintiffs’ complaint challenging the validity of those ordinances. Trial has been held on this matter, and the parties have filed briefs setting forth their respective positions. The matter is thus ripe for disposition. Background including findings of fact Defendant City of Hazleton is located in Luzerne County in northeastern Pennsylvania. The city’s executive is a mayor and the city’s legislature is a city council. Under Pennsylvania law, Hazleton is a City of the Third Class and operates under an Optional Plan B form of government. (Notes of trial testimony (hereinafter “N.T”) 3/15/07 at 204-05). At the time of the 2000 census, Hazle-ton’s population was 23,000. (N.T. 3/16/07 at 145-46). Since 2000, Hazleton’s population has increased sharply, and now has an estimated 30,000 to 33,000 residents. (P-148, 2007 Budget Proposal, at 1-2; N.T. 3/19/07 at 163-64). The increase in Hazleton’s population can be explained largely by a recent influx of immigrants, most of whom are Latino. (N.T. 3/16/07 at 146). After the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, many Latino families moved from New York and New Jersey to Hazleton seeking a better life, employment and affordable housing. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 66-67; N.T. 3/14/07 at 29-30). Those moving to Hazleton included United States citizens, lawful permanent residents and undocumented immigrants. (N.T. 3/13/07 at 161; N.T. 3/14/07 at 29-30). The number of undocumented immigrants in Hazleton is unknown. (N.T. 3/16/07 at 146). Immigrants, both legal and undocumented, support the local economy through consumer spending, paying rent and paying sales taxes. (N.T. 3/14/07 at 67-70). Beginning on July 13, 2006, the City of Hazleton enacted numerous ordinances aimed at combating what the city viewed as the problems created by the presence of “illegal aliens.” On July 13, 2006, Ordinance 2006-10, the city’s first version of its “Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance” was passed. This ordinance prohibits the employment and harboring of undocumented aliens in the City of Hazleton. On August 15, 2006, the city passed the “Tenant Registration Ordinance,” Ordinance 2006-13 (“RO”). This ordinance requires apartment dwellers to obtain an occupancy permit. To receive such a permit, they must prove they are citizens or lawful residents. On September 21, 2006, Hazleton enacted Ordinance 2006-18, entitled the “Illegal Immigration Relief Act Ordinance” (“IIRA”) and Ordinance 2006-19, the “Official English Ordinance.” These two ordinances replaced the original Illegal Immigration Relief Act. On December 28, 2006, Hazleton enacted Ordinance 2006-40, which amended IIRA by adding an “implementation and process” section. During the trial of the above matter, the city enacted the final ordinance at issue in this case, Ordinance 2007-6, which made minor, but important, changes to the language of portions of IIRA. At issue in the instant case are IIRA and RO. IIRA defines “illegal alien” as an “alien who is not lawfully present in the United States, according to the terms of United States Code Title 8, section 1101 et seq.” (IIRA § 3.D.). Title 8, section 1101, et seq. is commonly referred to as the Immigration and Nationality Act or “INA”. The INA provides no definition for the term “illegal alien” or the term “lawfully present.” (N.T. 3/19/07 at 130). Generally, under federal law, aliens can be present in the country as: 1) lawfully admitted non-immigrants, i.e., visitors, those in the country temporarily; and 2) lawful immigrants, lawful permanent residents, referred to sometimes as “green card holders.” (N.T. 3/19/07 at 112-13). Lawfully admitted for permanent residence status can be attained in various ways, including family or employment characteristics, the “green card lottery” or relief such as asylum. (Id. at 112-13). A third category of aliens present in the country are “undocumented aliens” who lack lawful immigration status. These aliens may have overstayed their time in the United States or entered the country illegally. (Id. at 113). The number of these individuals is approximately twelve million. (IcL). Hazleton’s use of the term “illegal alien” evidently is aimed at these individuals. On August 15, 2006, plaintiffs filed the instant action to challenge the validity of the Hazleton ordinances. On October 30, 2006, an amended complaint was filed along with a motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the defendant from enforcing the ordinances. On October 31, 2006, the court granted the plaintiffs’ request for a Temporary Restraining Order. (Doc. 35). The court ordered that the Temporary Restraining Order remain in effect until November 14, 2006 and scheduled a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion for November 13, 2006. (Doc. 36). In order to conduct discovery and fully brief the issues raised in the amended complaint, the parties entered into a stipulation to extend the Temporary Restraining Order for 120 days or until trial and resolution of the matter. (Doc. 39). On January 12, 2007, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint. (Doc. 82). The second amended complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that IIRA and RO violate the Supremacy Clause, the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiffs also claim that the ordinances violate 42 U.S.C. § 1981; the Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601 et seq.; plaintiffs’ privacy rights; Pennsylvania’s Home Rule Charter Law, 53 Pa. Cons.Stat. §§ 2961; et seq., the Landlord and Tenant Act 68 Penn. Stat. §§ 250.101 et seq.; and its police powers. The following plaintiffs filed the second amended complaint: — Pedro Lozano, a lawful permanent resident of the United States, who immigrated from Colombia in January 2002 in search of a better life. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 161). He served as an official in the National Police force for thirty-five years in Colombia. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 162). He moved to Hazleton from New York City to find affordable housing and better employment. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 164). — Jose Luis Lechuga and his wife, Rosa Lechuga, who immigrated illegally to the United States from Mexico in 1982 to forge a better life for themselves and their children. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 118-119). In the late 1980s, they received amnesty and became lawful permanent residents.. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 119-120). In 1991, the Lechu-gas moved to Hazleton for its employment opportunities. (N.T. 3/12/2007 at 122-123). — Humberto Hernandez is listed in the complaint as a plaintiff. (Doc. 81, ¶¶ 3-4). Plaintiffs presented no testimony at trial regarding Hernandez; therefore, he will be dismissed. — John Doe 1 has lived in Hazleton for six years, but was born in Mexico. (See Doc. 189, Dep. John Doe 1 at 12). John Doe 1 is not a United States citizen or legal permanent resident, though his father filed a document with the federal government seeking to change his immigration status. (Id. ■ at 16, 19). John Doe 1 is unsure of his immigration status, though he thought that the federal government could order him removed from the country. (Id. at 22). John Doe 1 is also unsure of whether he has legal authorization to work. (Id.). — John Doe 3 moved to Hazleton four years ago. (Doc. 190, Dep. John Doe 3 at 8). He is not a U.S. citizen or a lawful permanent resident. (Id. at 11). — Jane Doe 5 and John Doe 7 moved to Hazleton more than five years ago. (Doc. 191, Dep. Jane Doe 5 at 13). Neither is a U.S. citizen nor a lawful permanent resident. (Doc. 191, Dep. Jane Doe 5 at 15, Doc. 192, Dep. John Doe 7 at 10-11). They were both born in Colombia, where John Doe 7 worked as an architect, and have been married for over twenty-eight years. (Doc. 191, Dep. Jane Doe 5 at 16, Doc. 192, Dep. John Doe 7 at 9-11). — Hazleton Hispanic Business Association is an organization comprised of approximately twenty-seven Hispanic business and property owners from the Hazleton area. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 77, 78, 80, 98). Members include landlords in the city of Hazleton. (Id. at 98). — Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition is a not-for-profit organization with a mission to promote the social, political, economic and cultural development of Pennsylvania Latinos and to develop leadership and create networks among Latino leaders and communities. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 20-22). — Casa Dominicana de Hazleton, Inc. is an organization that provides assistance, orientation and education to the Latino community in Hazleton and attempts to unify ties between the Latino and non-Latino communities. (N.T. 3/14/07 at 7-9). It provides members with information, legal referrals and assistance with economic difficulties. (Id. at 8-9). It also works to keep youth from joining gangs. (Vol.3, 27-28). Plaintiffs seek an injunction pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure enjoining Hazleton from implementing or enforcing the ordinances. Additionally, plaintiffs seek the costs incurred in this litigation including attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988. On January 23, 2007, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint. (Doc. 84). Plaintiffs filed a brief in opposition to the motion to dismiss and a motion for summary judgment on February 12, 2007. (Doc. 106). On February 22, 2007, we held a pretrial conference where we indicated that we would consolidate the motion to dismiss and the motion for summary judgment into the trial. Defendant filed a memorandum in opposition to the summary judgment motion on March 2, 2007. (Doc. 150). The court held a hearing on the preliminary injunction motion from March 12, 2007 through March 22, 2007. We notified the parties that this hearing would be the final trial on the injunctive matter. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 65(a)(2)(“Before or after the commencement of the hearing of an application for a preliminary injunction, the court may order the trial of the action on the merits to be advanced and consolidated with the hearing of the application.”). After the completion of the trial transcript on April 20, 2007, the parties submitted their post-trial briefs on May 14, 2007. (Doc. 218, 219). The matter is thus ripe for disposition. Jurisdiction As this case is brought pursuant to federal statutes and the federal constitution, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”). We have authority to issue a declaratory judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 2201 (explaining that “any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration[.]”). We have supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Discussion Before we address the merits of plaintiffs’ complaint we must address several preliminary matters. These matters include standing, the propriety of several plaintiffs proceeding anonymously and which version of the ordinances should be addressed. I. Preliminary issues A. Standing Defendant argues that all plaintiffs lack standing to bring this lawsuit. Courts have identified two types of standing, constitutional and prudential, and defendant contends that plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements of either type. We will address each in turn. 1. Constitutional Standing “No principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal-court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U.S. 26, 37, 96 S.Ct. 1917, 48 L.Ed.2d 450 (1976). Standing provides “justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a ‘case or controversy’ between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Art. III.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). The Supreme Court has held that “the standing question in its Art. Ill aspect is whether the plaintiff has ‘alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy’ as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court’s remedial powers on his behalf.’ ” Simon, 426 U.S. at 38, 96 S.Ct. 1917 (quoting Warth, 422 U.S. at 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197). The Court has described three elements that comprise the “irreducible constitutional minimum of standing.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Edüd 351 (1992). A plaintiff must first “have suffered an ‘injury in fact’ — an invasion of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized [citations omitted] and (b) ‘actual or imminent’, not ‘conjectural or hypothetical.’ ” Id. (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102, 103 S.Ct. 1660, 75 L.Ed.2d 675 (1983)). The injury suffered by the plaintiff must also be causally connected to the conduct of which the plaintiff complains: “the injury has to be ‘fairly ... trace[able] to the challenged action of the defendant, and not ... the result [of] the independent action of some third party not before the court.’ ” Id. (quoting Simon, 426 U.S. at 41-42, 96 S.Ct. 1917). Finally, “it must be ‘likely’ as opposed to merely ‘speculative,’ that the injury will be ‘redressed by a favorable decision.’ ” Id. (quoting Id. at 38, 43, 96 S.Ct. 1917). “The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden” of proof to demonstrate standing. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561, 112 5.Ct. 2130. The level of proof required of a party conforms to “the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation.” Id. In the initial stage of the litigation, when the plaintiff need only meet the pleading standards, “general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant’s conduct may suffice.” Id. When the issue in question is summary judgment, though, “the plaintiff can no longer rest on such ‘mere allegations,’ but must ‘set forth’ by affidavit or other evidence ‘specific facts,’ which for purposes of the summary judgment motion will be taken as true.” Id. (quoting Fed. R.CivP. 56(e)). At trial, “those facts (if controverted) must be ‘supported adequately by the evidence adduced at trial.’ ” Id. (quoting Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 115 n. 31, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979)). a. Named Plaintiffs i. Landlord Plaintiffs Defendant argues that the landlord plaintiffs lack standing to bring this suit. Those plaintiffs, defendant claims, did not suffer an injury caused by the ordinances which this court could redress. Plaintiff Pedro Lozano, a native of Columbia who is a legal resident of the United States, lives in Hazleton. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 161, 163). Lozano and his wife purchased a two-family home in Hazleton in April 2005. (Id. at 164). They planned to rent half of the house to “have assistance with the mortgage.” (Id. at 164). This rental property, Lozano insists, forms the basis for his standing in this case. The defendant disputes this assertion. We reject the defendant’s position and find that Lozano has standing to sue regarding both the tenant registration and the employer portions of Hazleton’s ordinances. First, Lozano has suffered an injury that is both concrete and particular and actual or imminent. Lozano rented the property immediately after signing the mortgage, and continued to do so until the City passed the ordinances. (Id. at 165). Once the ordinances passed, Lozano had more difficulty renting the property, “and the tenants that were there ran away.” (Id.). His tenants left after he informed them that they may have to obtain a permit from the City to rent the apartment. (Id. at 167). After the ordinances passed, Lozano “sporadically” rented the property, but the house was not occupied “continuously.” (Id. at 168). He showed the apartment to at least five or six people, who seemed interested in the property but failed to complete the transaction. (Id.). Lozano’s difficulties in renting the apartment constitute an injury. Lozano also had hired others to do more complicated repairs on his property, such as roofing. (Id. at 175). He anticipated hiring a contractor to repair his roof sometime in the future. (Id.). He would thus be forced, as an employer of labor, to comply with the employer requirements of the IIRA, adding a burden of time and expense to his operations. Therefore, he has suffered an actual or imminent injury sufficient to meet the constitutional standing requirements. See Pennell v. City of San Jose, 485 U.S. 1, 8, 108 S.Ct. 849, 99 L.Ed.2d 1 (1988) (finding that landlords who challenged zoning requirements related to hardship tenants had standing because “[t]he likelihood of enforcement, with the concomitant probability that a landlord’s rent will be reduced below what he or she would otherwise be able to, obtain in the absence of the ordinances, is a sufficient threat of actual injury to satisfy Art. Ill’s requirement that ‘a plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement.’ ”) (quoting Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979)). We disagree with the defendant that these injuries cannot be recognized by the law because they constitute a complaint about an inability to rent to illegal immigrants. The plaintiffs testified that they were unaware of the immigration status of their renters. No evidence, therefore, indicates that the renters they lost were illegal immigrants. Such tenants may have been legal residents who did not desire to live in a town that appeared (to them) to seek to exclude Spanish-speaking residents. Such tenants may also have concluded that they did not want to register with the town and provide private information to the City as a condition of residing there. Perhaps they found the fees required for a permit onerous. In any case, we will not assume that the renters plaintiff lost were necessarily illegal immigrants. Further, Lozano’s injuries are caused by the defendant’s ordinances. Potential renters’ concerns with the registration requirements of the ordinances and the attitude towards immigrants their passage conveyed undermined Lozano’s ability to secure tenants. Lozano had informed the prospective tenants that the ordinance’s registration requirements mandated that they bring immigration documents to the City, and those prospective renters never returned. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 168). In addition, complying with the ordinances requires action that will cause him time and expense and expose Lozano to potential adverse enforcement actions. If the ordinances did not exist, the landlord plaintiffs would not be required to follow these procedures. The injury Lozano claims is therefore caused by the defendant’s actions. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561-62, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (holding that “[w]hen the suit is one challenging the legality of government action or inaction, the nature and extent of facts that must be averred (at the summary judgment stage) or proved (at the trial stage) in order to establish standing depends considerably upon whether the plaintiff is himself an object of the action (or foregone action) at issue. If he is, there is ordinarily little question that the action or inaction has caused him injury, and that a judgment preventing or requiring the action will address it.”). Redressability is also apparent: if this court declares the ordinances unconstitutional and enjoins their enforcement, Loza-no and the other landlord plaintiffs will not be forced to comply with them. As a result, those plaintiffs will not be required to examine and ensure the immigration status of their tenants, facing the possibility of fines and other penalties from the City for failing to do so. The burdens they face from such compliance will not exist, and their injury will be eliminated. ii. Rosa and Luis Lechuga Defendant also challenges the standing of the plaintiffs Rosa and Luis Lechuga, who when they filed suit were business owners in the City. Plaintiff Jose Lechuga, a resident of Hazleton, had lived in the City of Hazleton with his wife Rosa and their five children for sixteen years. (N.T. 3/12/07 at 118). When he came originally to the United States from Mexico in 1982, he did not have legal authorization to do so, but he is now a legal permanent resident of the country. (Id. at 118-19). He and his wife used a 1980s federal amnesty program to adjust their immigration status. (Id. at 120). Lechuga opened a store, Lechuga’s Mexican Products, in 2000. (Id. at 128). The store sold “[t]ortillas, cheese, chorizo, canned chiles, different canned products, [and] also sodas from Mexico.” (Id.). His family worked in the store with him, including his wife and children. (Id. at 129). The business was not always profitable; in 2005 the Lechugas “didn’t have much of a profit, but ... [were] still in business.” (Id. at 130). Business improved in 2006, but began decreasing after the City passed the ordinances. (Id. at 131). By early 2007, business had become “terrible,” and in February 2007, Lechuga closed the store. (Id.). Lechuga opened another business, a restaurant called Langria Lechuga, in February 2006. (Id. at 132). Lechuga’s wife Rosa operated that business, doing the cooking. (Id.). When he found the time, Lechuga helped by serving, taking orders, washing dishes and cleaning. (Id.). This business was no more successful than the Lechugas’ store. (Id. at 133). Lechuga blamed his lack of business on the City’s activities. (Id.). A police car was often parked across the street from the restaurant, and after a police officer paid a visit, “people began to comment that the police [were] there to take the clients away when they came to eat.” (Id. at 133). This made potential customers feel “intimidated, and that is the reason why we lost our business.” (Id.). In neither of these businesses did Lechuga employ anyone; he testified that he had never had any plans to employ anyone at either store. (Id. at 150-51). Plaintiffs have suffered an injury here in the loss of business they experienced after the ordinances passed. To experience an injury sufficient to create standing, a plaintiff need not allege a large quantum of harm. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals, in Belitskus v. Pizzingrilli, 343 F.3d 632 (3d Cir.2003), found that a plaintiff who complained that he could not afford a $100 filing fee to campaign for public office had stated an injury sufficient to confer standing. Id. at 640. Plaintiff had only $50 in campaign funds and “paying the required fee would have completely depleted his campaign funds and required him to delve into his limited personal assets.” Id. (holding: “ ‘AH that the Article Ill’s injury-in-fact element requires is ‘an identifiable trifle’ of harm’ ”) (quoting Joint Stock Soc’y v. UDV N. Am., Inc., 266 F.3d 164, 177 (3d Cir.2001) (citation omitted)). The injury of which plaintiffs complain, like the potential injury in Belitskus, is one that pushed their financial condition from bad to worse, contributing ultimately to disaster. Such an injury surely constitutes an “identifiable trifle.” The Lechuga’s injury was caused at least in part by the defendant’s ordinances. While other factors apparently contributed to the decline of the Lechuga’s businesses, we find that they have presented evidence that Hazleton’s approval of the ordinances contributed at least in part to the decline of customers for Lechuga’s store and restaurant, and therefore, the injury they suffered is at least fairly traceable to the defendant. Our decision on the constitutionality of the ordinances would not, however, allow the Lechugas redress from their injuries. Their businesses, unfortunately, have now closed. They did not testify that they planned to reopen their businesses pending resolution- of this lawsuit, and the plaintiffs do not seek monetary damages from the defendant. Accordingly, no action by this court would provide relief to the Lechugas, and they lack standing to sue. The Lechuga’s lack of standing, however, does not mean that other business-owner plaintiffs, who will be forced to comply with the terms of the ordinances in order to operate their business in Hazle-ton, lack standing to sue, as we explain below. b. Organizational Plaintiffs Defendant argues that the organizational plaintiffs — Casa Dominicana of Hazle-ton, Inc., the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association and the Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition- — -all lack standing. Defendant argues that none of the individual members of these associations have standing, and that the organizations cannot claim representational standing. Defendant also contends that none of the organizational plaintiffs can allege a concrete injury to their own interests, because any membership loss experienced by the organizations since the passage of the ordinances is connected by only a speculative thread to the ordinances themselves. Any claim of public hostility to the organizations generated by the ordinances is too generalized, defendant claims, to constitute an injury in fact. Defendant also contends that plaintiffs have not proved any causal connection between the ordinances and the injuries suffered by the plaintiff organizations. Finally, defendant insists that an injunction against the ordinances would not be likely to redress the injuries plaintiffs claim. An organization seeking to participate in a lawsuit must demonstrate that it has standing to sue. While an organization can have standing in its own right, “an association may have standing solely as the representative of its members.” Worth, 422 U.S. at 511, 95 S.Ct. 2197. Still, such standing “does not eliminate or attenuate the constitutional requirement of a case or controversy.” Id. Courts have found that an organization can have “representational standing” when “ T) the organization’s members would have standing to sue on their own, 2) the interests the organization seeks to protect are germane to its purpose, and 3) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires individual participation by its members.’ ” Public Interest Research Group of New Jersey v. Powell Duffryn Terminals, Inc., 913 F.2d 64, 70 (3d Cir.1990) (quoting Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977)). Defendant challenges the standing of the Hazleton Hispanic Business Association (“HHBA”). Rudolfo Espinal, the president of the HHBA, testified at trial as a representative of that organization. (N.T. 3/13/07 at 77). Espinal testified that the HHBA, formed in August 2006, is “a group of Hispanic businessowners that got together in the City of Hazleton to work towards common goals,” especially to “promote the interest of our business members and to project the image of the Hispanic business community and to also help the community any way that we can.” (Id. at 77-78). Most of the businesses in the association are located in Hazleton, though some operate in the neighboring town of West Hazleton. (Id. at 78). The association promoted access to health insurance and accounting services, but also aimed to protest the anti-illegal immigration ordinances that the City had proposed. (Id. at 79). Twenty-seven members joined the organization. (Id. at 80). The passage of the ordinances harmed organization members; some lost their businesses or a significant portion of their patrons, and many members abandoned plans to expand their businesses. (Id. at 81). The organization also lost members, as “some of [them] didn’t want to be part of the organization anymore.” (Id. at 83). The HHBA lost resources, as members were required to pay $75 in dues and fewer dues-paying members remained. (Id. at 84). Espinal himself lost business as a result of the ordinances. Espinal owned three rental properties in the City of Hazleton. (Id. at 90). At the time of trial, two of those units were undergoing repairs, and one was occupied. (Id.) That building consisted of four apartment units. (Id.). Es-pinal lived in one of those units and rented out two others. (Id.). The fourth sat vacant. (Id.). Espinal testified that after the City passed its ordinances “it is harder to rent apartments now, and besides that, I think that I lost tenants, potential tenants because of the ordinance.” (Id. at 92-93). After showing the apartment to prospective tenants and discussing rental prices, those tenants had indicated a desire to rent the unit. {Id. at 93). Following a discussion with these prospective tenants of the registration requirements under , the ordinances, however, Espinal “didn’t hear from them.” {Id.). A similar process repeated itself with several other prospective renters. {Id. at 95). Espinal planned to offer his other properties for rent, but needed to perform repairs such as painting, carpeting and electrical work before doing so. {Id. at 96). Espinal intended to perform some of that work himself, but would also hire workers to perform “whatever area I don’t feel comfortable with.” {Id. at 96). As president of the HHBA, Espinal knew of other organization members who were landlords in Hazleton. (Id. at 98). These members had the same concerns for the effect of the ordinances on leasing their apartments. {Id.). Espi-nal also testified that he understood the ordinances to require that he obtain information on immigration status from tenants that he normally would not seek. He had no “training in evaluating a person’s immigration status or their documents.” {Id. at 102). The HHBA has representational standing in this case. Individual business owners who are members of the HHBA have standing to sue. Espinal, like Lozano, would have standing to sue as a landlord and as an employer. Espinal also testified that members of the HHBA would be required to comply with the procedures required for employers under the IIRA. They would then face onerous paperwork requirements created by the ordinances for maintaining their licenses. These injuries would be caused by the ordinances and could be redressed by enjoining their enforcement. .Since the HHBA is designed to protect the interests of Hispanic business owners in the city and the lawsuit attacks city-created regulations of business, the organization is seeking to protect interests germane to its purpose. Finally, the claim asserted here by the organization attacks the ordinances on their face; such an attack does not require the factual specificity or individual experience required of a lawsuit over a specific event. Accordingly, the participation of individual members is not required for the court to address adequately the issues raised by the lawsuit. Defendant argues that the business-owner plaintiffs do not face an “actual or imminent risk” that the city will enforce the IIRA ordinance against them because these plaintiffs do not know if they have any illegal alien employees and cannot say they definitely will hire such employees in the future. In any case, defendant insists, plaintiffs have no legal right to employ illegal aliens and cannot have an injury from an ordinance that prevents such action. Becausé the law operates only prospectively, plaintiffs can suffer an injury from the ordinance only if they hire an unauthorized worker according to the defendant. Since no plaintiff has declared an intention to hire an undocumented alien, defendant contends, the plaintiffs have no injury. Plaintiffs who claim to have suffered a loss of business commerce as a result of the ordinances also cannot demonstrate an injury, defendant insists, since “[n]o-one has a legally cognizable interest in profiting from the continuing sales of products to aliens unlawfully present in the United States.” (Memorandum of law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doe. 87) at 18). Defendant further contends that the plaintiffs cannot prove that the alleged injuries to their businesses were caused by the ordinances and cannot meet the causation requirement for standing. We reject this argument. The business-owner plaintiffs do not complain that the ordinances limit their ability to sell products to and hire illegal aliens. They complain that the City’s ordinances damage them by hindering the operation of their businesses and by requiring them to seek immigration information from employees in a way that violates federal law. Their injury comes in the operation and requirements of the ordinances, not in their inability to sell, hire or rent to undocumented persons. Defendant also challenges the standing to sue of Casa Dominicana de Hazleton (“Casa”). At trial Manuel Salda-na, President of the organization, testified as a representative of the organization. (See N.T. 3/14/07 at 7). Casa is a not-for-profit corporation founded in August 2005.(Id). The organization’s offices are located in Hazleton. (Id. at 10). Around fifty Casa members live in Hazleton. (Id. at 12). Twenty to twenty-three members may lack legal authorization to reside in the United States. (Id. at 21). Casa’s purpose is “[t]o offer assistance, orientation, education, keep the unity within the community and unify the ties between the Hazleton community and the Latin community.” (Id. at 7). Members of the organization included “[ijndividuals, people renting, employees, different businesses, owners of businesses, drivers, chauffeurs,” “a cross-section of the Hazleton community[.]” (Id. at 9-10). To its members, the organization provides services to help with orientation and education. (Id. at 8). Casa also sponsors concerts and raises money to assist members through periods of financial difficulty. (Id.). The organization also assists members with problems in their immigration status by directing them to attorneys and providing assistance through “orientation.” (Id. at 8-9). Casa members petitioned the organization to participate in the instant lawsuit. (Id. at 11). They feared the impact of the ordinances. (Id. at 14). Members, both legal and illegal residents, expressed “fear of not being able to obtain housing at a moment when it was needed” as well as concerns about having to produce identification at work and the effect of the ordinances on their children at school. (Id.). The organization lost thirty-five members in August 2006, after the City passed its ordinances. (Id. at 17). One member who left the organization decided to leave Ha-zleton because “he found that the measures that were about to be approved were hateful and uncomfortable for him.” (Id. at 18). This loss of membership, Saldana testified, harmed the organization because it diminished the number of volunteers available to carry out the group’s activities and limited the number of services Casa could offer members. (Id. at 18-19). Casa has representational standing. Members of the organization are both tenants and employees in Hazleton, and would be required to comply with the terms of the ordinances. They would have to participate in the rental registration program or lose their housing in the city. They would have to supply their employers with immigration information or face losing their jobs. Those injuries for individual members would be fairly traceable to the ordinances, which institute the registration and employment regulations. If we were to enjoin enforcement of the ordinances as the plaintiffs here seek, we could redress the Casa’s injuries in this case. Casa’s purpose, to promote the interests of Dominicans in their relationships in the Ha-zleton community, would be served by this litigation. Finally, since this case consists of a facial challenge to the City’s ordinances, the interests of the litigation can be advanced without requiring the participation of individual plaintiffs. Casa has representational standing for its members. The defendant likewise challenges the standing to sue of plaintiff Pennsylvania Statewide Latino Coalition (“PSLC”). Jose Molina testified as representative of the PSLC during the trial in this case. PSLC “is a nonprofit organization that promotes social, financial, political and cultural development of the Latino community in the State of Pennsylvania,” (N.T. 3/13/07 at 20). The organization’s goal “is to have a network of Latinos” addressing the interests of Latino communities statewide. (Id. at 21). The organization was founded by volunteers from across the state. (Id.). Of the 6,000 statewide PSLC members approximately twenty reside in Hazleton. (Id. at 52). Among the activities the PSLC has engaged in are lawsuits protesting discriminatory hiring practices for police officers and teachers, the promotion of professional certification for nurses and teachers from Puerto Rico, and promotion of voter registration and voters’ rights. (Id. at 23). The organization also promotes education for Latinos in the state. (Id. at 24). Before engaging in activities like litigation, PSLC representatives “sit down with residents and people that are affected.” (Id.). Such conversations are often initiated by these people, who reach out to the PSLC for help. (Id.). The PSLC became involved in the Ha-zleton litigation partly as a result of requests from Hazleton community activists. (Id. at 25). On July 30, 2006, the PSLC organized a meeting in Hazleton to discuss the ordinances. (Id. at 26). Between fifty and sixty people, including “homeowners ... business owners ... [and] landlords,” attended this meeting. (Id. at 27). The fears that attendees at this meeting expressed to Molina convinced him that the issues raised by the ordinances would affect people far beyond Hazleton’s borders. (Id. at 28-29). Members of the organization who expressed these concerns included several who lived in Hazleton and who “decided to join and become members right away in the thinking that this is something that may help us, because we want to stay in this community.” (Id. at 30). Among these members were Anna Arias, who rented out half of her home and “the Rubio family,” who owned a gift shop. (Id. at 65-66). Another member owned a barber shop, and Molina pointed to “a few more” members who were business owners. (Id. at 66). The PSLC has representational standing. Members of the organization include residents of Hazleton who face actual or imminent injury from the ordinances because they are landlords or business owners who will be required to comply with the ordinances’ terms. They will have to register if they intend to rent apartments, providing personal and potentially confidential information to the City. If they are employees, they will also have to provide information about their immigration status. Similarly, members who are employers will be burdened with IIRA’s requirements and face liability if challenged on their employment practices. Accordingly, these plaintiffs have or will suffer an imminent injury from the ordinances. These injuries, since they are or would be caused by the operation of the ordinances, are fairly traceable to the defendant’s actions. Finally, an injunction would prevent the plaintiffs from being required to comply with the terms of the ordinances, and would thus provide redress. Participation in the litigation would serve the purposes of the PSLC, since the social and financial interests of Latinos in Hazleton are threatened by the terms of the ordinances and the PSLC’s involvement in the litigation seeks to protect those interests. In addition, since this is a challenge to ordinances that involves constitutional concerns rather than litigation about a particular event or interest, the individual participation of the represented members is not required to insure that their interests are protected. c. Tenant Plaintiffs Defendant argues that the plaintiffs who are tenants in Hazleton, all of whom attempt to proceed anonymously, lack standing to sue. These plaintiffs, defendant contends, ground their claim in a belief that they may not obtain occupancy permits from the City and will, therefore, be required to leave Hazleton. Defendant insists that this injury is not one which the court can address. Those plaintiffs who are not lawfully present in the United States do not have a legal interest in residing in Hazleton or anywhere in the United States and cannot claim an injury from ordinances that seek to prevent their residence in the City. Defendant also argues that those tenant plaintiffs who are lawfully present in the United States cannot show that they will likely suffer any injury-in-fact. IIRA, after all, will not cause them to be removed from the City or be denied an occupancy permit. If a tenant can show proof of legal residency or citizenship, that tenant must receive a rental permit and will suffer no injury from the ordinance. Even if a resident filed a complaint against a legal resident, such a plaintiff would not be injured: “an alien lawfully present in the United States can have no reasonable expectation that the federal government would regard him as unlawfully present.” (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 87) at 20). Plaintiff John Doe 1 testified by deposition on December 8, 2006. (See Doc. 189, Dep. John Doe 1). He has lived in Hazle-ton for six years, but was born in Mexico. (Id. at 12). John Doe 1 is not a United States citizen or legal permanent resident, though his father filed a document with the federal government seeking to change his immigration status. (Id. at 16, 19). He testified that he was unsure of his immigration status, though he thought that the federal government could order him removed from the country. (Id. at 22). John Doe 1 was also unsure whether he had legal authorization to work. (Id.). When he began working for his present employer, John Doe 1 presented identification that included an international driver’s license and a Social Security card. (Id at 27). John Doe 1 was forced to vacate one apartment after a landlord told him he would “have to move” after passage of the Hazleton ordinances. (Id. at 43). Though John Doe 1 thought he may be able to get a residency permit, his landlord told him “maybe, but he didn’t want to take the risk” of having to pay a fine. (Id. at 44). John Doe 1 felt that his landlord wished he could stay in the apartment “because I’m a good tenant and we’re family, but when he saw the ordinance, he was afraid.” (Id. at 53). John Doe 3 likewise testified by deposition on December 8, 2006. (See Doc. 190, Dep. John Doe 3). He was born in Mexico and is a citizen of that country. (Id. at 17). He is a tenant in Hazleton, where he lives with his wife and two daughters. (Id. at 12-13). Joe Doe 3 is not a lawful permanent resident of the United States. (Id. at 24). He understands his immigration status to be “illegal.” (Id. at 26). If this court were to allow the Hazleton ordinances to go into effect, John Doe 3 fears that he will be evicted from his residence. (Id. at 31). Jane Doe 5 testified by deposition on January 26, 2007. (See Doc. 191, Dep. Jane Doe 5). Jane Doe 5 rented an apartment in Hazleton, the city where she had lived for the past five years. (Id. at 12-13). She was born in Columbia, and is not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. (Id. at 14-15, 56). She fears apprehension and removal by United States authorities if the City enforces its ordinances. (Id. at 56). Jane Doe 5 does not want to lose her residence, and for that reason hopes the ordinance will not be enforced. (Id. at 61-62). She did not want to speak to her landlord about the registration ordinance because she feared that the landlord would feel he had to ask her family to vacate their home. (Id. at 74). If the ordinances were enforced, Jane Doe 5 fears that she would have trouble finding a place to live in the City. (Id. at 81). John Doe 7 testified by deposition on January 26, 2007. (See Doc. 191, Dep. John Doe 7). Like his wife, Jane Doe 5, John Doe 7 was born in Columbia. (Id. at 9). He is not a United States citizen or lawful permanent resident. (Id. at 10). Trained as an architect, Doe 7 came to the United States in 2001.(/d). For the previous seven ' or eight months, Doe had worked as a gardener. (Id. at 12). He and his wife lived in a rented home in Hazleton. (Id. at 14-15). John Doe 7 testified that he had not spoken frequently with his landlord out of fear that “because of the ordinances, he’s going to ask them to leave the house, evict them from the house.” (Id. at 58). That would require him “to find another house and it’s going to be so difficult” to do so. (Id.). He fears he would be forced to leave Hazleton. (Id.). These plaintiffs claim that the rental registration requirements and harboring provisions of IIRA violate their rights under federal law and the United States Constitution, including their right to privacy. We find that the anonymous plaintiffs have standing to challenge Hazleton’s ordinances. They have suffered concrete and particularized injuries which are actual or imminent. These plaintiffs have either been forced from the property which they had rented or had been told by their landlords that they would have to be evicted due to the ordinances. The loss (or imminent loss) of one’s apartment and the inability to rent a new one is certainly an actual and concrete injury. See Babbitt v. United Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 298, 99 S.Ct. 2301, 60 L.Ed.2d 895 (1979) (holding that “[a] plaintiff who challenges a statute must demonstrate a realistic danger of sustaining a direct injury as a result of the statute’s operation or enforcement [citation omitted] [b]ut [one] does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending that is enough.”). Similarly, plaintiffs would suffer an injury to their privacy rights if forced to turn over private information in order to gain a rental permit. Such an injury is imminent, as plaintiffs intend to remain in Hazleton and would be required to obey the ordinance if it is enforced. The tenant plaintiffs also meet the causation requirements of constitutional standing. But for IIRA’s requirements that plaintiffs obtain a rental permit by presenting documentation that proves their legal immigration status, plaintiffs would not face the loss of their apartments or the exposure of potentially private information. Plaintiffs face eviction by their landlords only because of IIRA’s harboring provisions. Plaintiffs’ injuries would also be redressed by a favorable decision in this case. If plaintiffs prevail here, this court will issue a permanent injunction against the enforcement of the ordinances that has caused their injuries. The tenant plaintiffs thus have constitutional standing to proceed in this case. We reject defendant’s argument that these plaintiffs lack standing because they do not have authorization to reside in the United States and have not suffered an injury for which they could gain relief. First, the defendant appears to argue that because plaintiffs would be denied residency permits under the Hazleton ordinance they lack authorization to reside anywhere in the United States. No court has made such a determination for any of these plaintiffs. No evidence has been presented that removal orders exist for any of the anonymous tenant plaintiffs. None has ever been arrested, and none testified they were being sought by immigration authorities. In other words, as of the time of their depositions, none of these plaintiffs would have been forced by any determination of the federal government to leave the City. To find otherwise at this point would be to ignore every principle of due process. The tautology of this argument is likewise apparent: defendant contends that plaintiff would not be able to obtain a residency permit in the city and therefore cannot complain about being required to do so. This argument appears to be a species of argument often heard in recent discussions of the national immigration issue: because illegal aliens broke the law to enter this country, they should not have any legal recourse when rights due them under the federal constitution or federal law are violated. We cannot say clearly enough that persons who enter this country without legal authorization are not stripped immediately of all their rights because of this single illegal act. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State may “deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. (emphasis added). The United States Supreme Court has consistently interpreted this provision to apply to all people present in the United States, whether they were born here, immigrated here through legal means, or violated federal law to enter the country. See Plyler, 457 U.S. at 210, 102 S.Ct. 2382 (holding that “[wjhatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term. Aliens, even aliens whose presence in this country is unlawful, have long been recognized as ‘persons’ guaranteed due process of law by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.”). The anonymous plaintiffs are persons, and they seek to vindicate rights guaranteed them under the federal constitution. They have standing to sue in this court. 2. Prudential Standing Having found that all plaintiffs possess constitutional standing, we now address defendant’s argument that plaintiffs lack prudential standing. Even if a court finds that plaintiffs meet the “threshold” requirements of constitutional standing, that court may nevertheless “impose” “a variety of prudential limits” on standing. 13 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller and Edward H. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure at § 3531. Courts have concluded that “the aim of this form of judicial self-governance is to determine whether the plaintiff is ‘a proper party to invoke judicial resolution of the dispute and the exercise of the court’s remedial powers.’ ” Mariana v. Fisher, 338 F.3d 189, 204 (3d Cir.2003) (quoting Oxford Assocs. v. Waste Sys. Auth. of E. Montgomery County, 271 F.3d 140, 145 (3d Cir.2001)). Courts invoking prudential standing analysis seek “ ‘to avoid deciding questions of broad social import where no individual rights would be vindicated and to limit access to the federal courts to those litigants best suited to assert a particular claim.’ ” Davis v. Philadelphia Housing Auth., 121 F.3d 92, 96 (3d Cir.1997) (quoting Wheeler v. Travelers Ins. Co., 22 F.3d 534, 538 (3d Cir.1994)). The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has articulated a three-part test for prudential standing: 1) “a litigant [must] assert his or her own legal interests rather than those of a third party”; 2) “courts [should] refrain from adjudicating abstract questions of wide public significance amounting to generalized grievances”; and 3) “a plaintiff must demonstrate that his or her interests are arguably within the ‘zone of interests’ that are intended to be protected by the statute, rule, or constitutional provision on which the claim is based.” Mariana, 338 F.3d at 205; see also Elk Grove Unified Sch. Dist. v. Newdow, 542 U.S. 1, 12, 124 S.Ct. 2301, 159 L.Ed.2d 98 (2004) (holding that “we have explained that prudential standing encompasses ‘the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiffs complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked.’ ”) (quoting Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 751, 104 S.Ct. 3315, 82 L.Ed.2d 556 (1984)). Defendant argues that none of the plaintiffs meet the requirements of prudential standing because they do not fall within the “zone of interests” of the Immigration and Nationality Act. We note, first, that defendant faces a difficult burden to establish that these plaintiffs lack prudential standing, as they do not seek to assert the rights of others or to challenge the way that an agency has applied a particular law, but instead seek to challenge ordinances which they claim would violate their rights under federal and state law. The United States Supreme Court has declared that “[wjhere a party champions his own rights, and where the injury alleged is a concrete and particularized one which will be prevented or redressed by the relief requested, the basic practical and prudential concerns underlying the standing doctrine are generally satisfied when the constitutional requisites are met.” Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Envtl. Study Group, 438 U.S. 59, 80-81, 98 S.Ct. 2620, 57 L.Ed.2d 595 (1978). Defendant insists that plaintiffs fall outside of the zone of interests protected by the statutes and constitutional provisions invoked in this lawsuit because the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) was not designed to protect “employers who unlawfully employee [sic] illegal aliens and landlords who harbor illegal aliens.” (Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 87) at 9). Accordingly, “those who break federal immigration law by employing or harboring illegal aliens have no standing to raise a challenge that is based on federal immigration law.” (Id.). Similarly, illegal aliens, the defendant contends, do not fall within the zone of interests of the INA and lack standing to raise a preemption claim under that statute; an illegal alien, defendant insists, “does not have standing to invoke the protection of the INA in attempting to displace a state or local ordinance.” (Id. at 9). The prudential standing doctrine indeed requires that “a plaintiffs grievance must arguably fall within the zone of interests protected or regulated by the statutory provision or constitutional guarantee invoked in the suit.” Bennett v. Spear, 520 U.S. 154, 163, 117 S.Ct. 1154, 137 L.Ed.2d 281 (Í997); see also Storino v. Borough of Point Pleasant Beach, 322 F.3d 293, 300 (3d Cir.2003). In this suit, plaintiffs invoke several different statutory and constitutional provisions in their numerous claims seeking to prevent enforcement of Hazleton’s ordinances. Plaintiffs, for instance, charge that the ordinances violate their constitutional privacy rights and the equal protection and due process guaranteed them under the Fourteenth Amendment, They also allege that the ordinances violate rights granted them by federal Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S. § 1981, and Pennsylvania statutory and common law. Finally, plaintiffs claim that the regulatory scheme set out under federal immigration law pre-empts Hazleton’s efforts to control the presence of illegal immigrants in the City and the ordinances violate the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. Our question, therefore, is whether these grievances fall within the zone of interests protected by the various constitutional and statutory provisions invoked by the plaintiffs in raising them. This case is different from most of the federal cases that invoke the zone of interests test, since the plaintiffs do not seek to challenge any application of a particular federal law. See, e.g., National Credit Union Administration v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 522 U.S. 479, 118 S.Ct. 927, 140 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) (finding that private banks and the American Bankers Association were within the zone of interests of the Federal Credit Union Act and had standing to challenge a federal agency’s interpretation of that act’s membership restrictions); Assoc. of Data Processing Service Orgs. v. Camp, 397 U.S. 150, 90 S.Ct. 827, 25 L.Ed.2d 184 (1970) (finding that data processing companies were within the zone of interests of federal banking law and had standing to challenge the Comptroller of the Currency’s ruling that national banks could make data processing services available to other banks and bank customers); Arnold Tours, Inc. v. Camp, 400 U.S. 45, 91 S.Ct. 158, 27 L.Ed.2d 179 (1970) (finding that travel agents had standing to challenge Comptroller of the Currency’s ruling that banks could offer travel services). While the courts have not foreclosed application of the zone of interests test to cases that do not involve a federal agency action, such cases nevertheless involve some sort of agency action against which the plaintiffs protest. See 2 Am Jur 2d Administrative Law § 430 (arguing that “[t]he zone-of-interests test is relevant only where the action under attack is that of a government agency.”). Here, the action against which the plaintiffs protest is a local legislative enactment which they contend violates rights guaranteed them in a variety of ways under state and federal law. Plaintiffs do not claim that the application or interpretation of a law by some state or local agency to which they have no connection is inappropriate but instead