Thread: Judge could block only part of SB1070

Judge could block only part of SB1070

Posted: 07/21/2010
Last Updated: 17 minutes ago
By: ABC15.com staff, wire reports

PHOENIX - Two federal court hearings in Phoenix ended Thursday without a ruling on whether the state's new immigration law should take effect amid a flurry of legal challenges against the crackdown.

During a Thursday morning hearing, Judge Susan Bolton told lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union that she's required to consider blocking only parts of the law, not the entire statute as requested.

A lawyer for the civil rights group says the law's provisions are designed to work together to prod illegal immigrants from the state, which he says is unconstitutional.

Lawyers for Gov. Jan Brewer say the assumption that the law means everybody that's Hispanic is going to be stopped and questioned "defies reality."

"I am very confident that Arizona will prevail," said Brewer late Thursday. "Judge Bolton asked very good questions…that's why we are in court, to have these things decided in a court of law."

Brewer and Arizona's U.S. attorney attended the second hearing, which focused on the U.S. Justice Department requesting a preliminary injunction blocking key sections of the law from taking effect.

During the afternoon hearing, Justice Department attorney Edwin Kneedler argued that state law is pre-empted by the federal government's constitutional authority to set immigration policy.

Bolton repeatedly questioned Kneedler to explain how specific provisions intruded on federal authority. "Why can't Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered the United States illegally?" she said.

Kneedler said the requirements to check on immigration status set a mandatory policy that goes beyond what the federal government requires and would burden the federal agency that responds to immigration-status inquiries.

Attorney John Bouma, who represents Brewer, said the federal government wants to keep its authority while turning a blind eye to illegal immigrants.

"You can't catch them if you don't know about them. They don't want to know about them," he said.

ABC15’s Corey Rangel was at the courthouse all day Thursday, sharing updates from inside the courtroom through his Twitter account. Follow his tweets below.

The American Civil Liberties Union, federal government and other opponents of the law asked U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton to grant an injuncton to block implementation of the law before it takes effect next Thursday. The judge has not said when she might issue a ruling.

ACLU attorney Omar Jadwat said the law's provisions are supposed to work together to achieve a goal of prodding illegal immigrants to leave the state. He called it unconstitutional and dangerous.

Most of the controversy about the law centers on provisions related to stops and arrests of people, new crimes related to illegal immigrants, and a requirement that immigrants carry and produce their immigration papers.

Other parts of the law getting little attention deal with impoundment of vehicles and sanctions against employment of illegal immigrants.

Bouma told Bolton that those challenging the law haven't demonstrated that anyone would suffer actual harm if it takes effect, and that facts -- not conjecture -- must be shown.

"People talk about what they fear will happen and what they believe will happen," he said.

The law requires officers, while enforcing other laws, to check a person's immigration status if there's a reasonable suspicion that the person is here illegally. It also bans people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day-labor services on streets and prohibits illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.

The law goes into effect on July 29th.

It is unclear how or when the judge will rule after Thursday’s hearings.

http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/state/sb1 ... -to-expect

This seems to be the talk of the day. I saw Jennifer Allen (BORDER Action Network) threw a fit seen on the news tonight. "We want the whole law thrown out, not just parts of it."

What part is most likely to be trown out?

The part about detention after police contact not providing documentation. If it is an ofence that normally gets a ticket, the judge doesn't want to fill the jail for misd. offences.