{"id":2966,"date":"2010-02-03T06:17:21","date_gmt":"2010-02-03T10:17:21","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/thedustininmansociety.com\/blog\/?p=2966"},"modified":"2010-02-03T06:17:21","modified_gmt":"2010-02-03T10:17:21","slug":"the-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-today-upheld-oklahoma%e2%80%99s-authority-to-enforce-a-law-that-requires-public-contractors-to-participate-in-the-federal-e-verify-programfrom-numbersusa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/2010\/02\/03\/the-10th-circuit-court-of-appeals-today-upheld-oklahoma%e2%80%99s-authority-to-enforce-a-law-that-requires-public-contractors-to-participate-in-the-federal-e-verify-programfrom-numbersusa\/","title":{"rendered":"The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld Oklahoma\u2019s authority to enforce a law that requires public contractors to participate in the federal E-Verify program&#8230;from NUMBERSUSA"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>10th Circuit Upholds Oklahoma\u2019s E-Verify Mandate for State Contractors<\/strong><br \/>\nTuesday, February 2, 2010,<\/p>\n<p><em>  NumbersUSA<\/em><\/p>\n<blockquote><p> The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld Oklahoma\u2019s authority to enforce a law that requires public contractors to participate in the federal E-Verify program. The majority on the Court\u2019s three-judge panel decided a lower court had erred in its determination that the law\u2019s E-Verify provision was preempted&#8230;<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p> Read <a href=\"http:\/\/www.numbersusa.com\/content\/news\/february-2-2010\/10th-circuit-upholds-oklahoma-s-e-verify-mandate-state-contractors.html\">Full Story<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>10th Circuit Upholds Oklahoma\u2019s E-Verify Mandate for State Contractors Tuesday, February 2, 2010, NumbersUSA The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals today upheld Oklahoma\u2019s authority to enforce a law that requires public contractors to participate in the federal E-Verify program. The majority on the Court\u2019s three-judge panel decided a lower court had erred in its determination [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2966"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2966"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2966\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2966"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2966"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.thedustininmansociety.org\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2966"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}