Emil Vassilev did it the right way. Born in Pernik, Bulgaria, and, as a top student, educated at university, he knew that there was “no future, no freedom” in Bulgaria’s Communist regime. In 1982, only 25 years old, he became a political refugee and traveled, legally, to Cleveland, Ohio. There, times were tough; however, Emil intended to make something of himself.

He spoke little English; nonetheless, he went to see the Dean of Case Western Reserve University and sought admission. He so impressed the Dean that he was admitted as a junior. In 1985, he received a B.S. in civil engineering and left for California. In 1986, after working briefly for others, he started a business, Van Elk Ltd., a welding and steel-working company that bids on private and public works projects. Today, Van Elk, Ltd. has ten full-time employees and has enjoyed over two decades of success.

Over the years, Mr. Vassilev taught his craft to his employees to allow them the same opportunities he enjoyed. His employees always returned the favor, that is, until September 2003, when four former employees sued Van Elk arguing that they had not been paid in accordance with California’s mini-Davis-Bacon law, which sets “prevailing wages” for public works projects.

During discovery, Van Elk’s California lawyers learned that the former employees were in the United States illegally. Therefore, in July 2004, Van Elk’s lawyers argued that, if the case went to trial, the facts would show that Van Elk had paid all that was owed the former employees. In the meantime, the court could not hear the case because, in 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that allowing illegal aliens to sue for backpay would “trivialize the immigration laws” and violate Congress’s intent to end unlawful employment of illegal aliens, which Congress called a “magnet . . . attract[ing] aliens here illegally.” In November 2004, the Los Angeles Superior Court agreed.

The Supreme Court’s ruling that federal labor laws did not supersede federal immigration laws was too much for California legislators who voted to enact prevailing wage statutes that provided that, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, when deciding if an employee could sue for prevailing wages, his immigration status was “irrelevant!” Therefore, when Van Elk’s former employees appealed, the California Court of Appeals used the language in California’s new statutes to reverse the lower court’s ruling and rule in favor of Van Elk’s former employees. Unfortunately, that was not the worst of it!

Van Elk’s lawyers argued that, under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, Congress had made national policy that employers could not hire illegal aliens. Furthermore, the Supreme Court’s ruling made clear that Congress’s legislation on that issue preempted other laws, barring lawsuits by illegal aliens to recover backpay. Finally, when California sought to circumvent both Congress’s immigration laws and the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling, California violated the Preemption Doctrine.

Incredibly, the Court of Appeals rejected that argument. So, days ago, MSLF asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear Van Elk’s case and declare that its 2002 ruling applies in California. The Court must also answer who is in charge of immigration policy, Congress or California? With 89 percent of Americans describing illegal immigration as a “serious” problem (Time 2006), MSLF’s petition for review could not come at a more important time.

This is nothing new for MSLF. In a case Time called “a legal lightening bolt,” MSLF sought and won Supreme Court review in a landmark attack on racial preferences and quotas. MSLF’s victory is now the law of the land!

Without abandoning issues that has made MSLF famous—the Equal Protection Clause, reasonable environmental regulations, private property rights, and access to public lands—MSLF is focused intently and aggressively on illegal immigration. For example, MSLF attorneys:

• Defended proponents of an Arizona ballot initiative that denied tax-payer financed, public “benefits” to illegal aliens and won!

• Defended the right of small businesses in Arizona and New York to require that English be spoken on the job site.

• Defended, along with other members of a small legal team, the right of Hazleton, Pennsylvania, to address illegal immigration.

Meanwhile, the audacity of illegal immigrants and their advocates in the ACLU and MALDEF continues to astonish and to draw MSLF responses:

• Jose Medellin, who murdered two teenage girls in Texas, used his pro bono lawyer to claim rights over those of U.S. citizens.

• Illegal aliens in Pennsylvania, Colorado, and Arizona argue they may do something citizens may not, sue using pseudonyms.

• ACLU types say, in Georgia, Indiana, Arizona, and the Supreme Court, that states may not require voters to prove citizenship.

• State officials argue that citizens may not sue to enforce federal laws adopted to prevent special treatment of illegal immigrants.

• 37 lawyers who sued Hazleton say they are owned $2.5 million, including one at $400 an hour; the federal rate is $125 an hour!

The outrageous demands go on and on. Even so, MSLF will fight back! MSLF has won great victories in the past; it will win again soon! MSLF is able to fight back, however, only with your tax-deductible support. Thank you!