Thread: Arizona asks SCOTUS to lift barriers to immigration law

Arizona asks U.S. Supreme Court to lift barriers to new immigration law
Posted: Wednesday, August 10, 2011 2:15 pm

Arizona asks U.S. Supreme Court to lift barriers to new immigration law By Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services East Valley Tribune

The state formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday for permission to begin enforcing key provisions of last year's immigration laws.

Paul Clement, the private lawyer hired by Gov. Jan Brewer to file the appeal, argued that U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton was wrong in issuing the injunction last year just days ahead of SB 1070 taking effect and that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals was wrong in April in upholding her decision. Clement argued there is no basis to put the law on hold while Bolton considers the legal challenges to the law by the Obama administration.


But the state could have an uphill fight.

An injunction technically has nothing to do with the underlying question of whether the law, approved by legislators last year, is legal.

Instead, a key issue for courts surrounds the "balance of hardships,'' meaning who is more likely to be harmed if the law is or is not allowed to take effect while its legality remains in dispute.

There also is the question of who is likely to win the case when it finally goes to trial.

In its ruling in April, the majority of the federal appellate concluded there was sufficient evidence to believe that provisions of SB 1070 are an unconstitutional infringement on the exclusive power of the federal government to regulate immigration. Judge Richard Paez, writing for the majority, also said such a conclusion is supported by "the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.''

The appellate court also said Bolton was correct in concluding that letting Arizona enforce the law while its legality is being challenged would cause harm to the interests of the United States. Paez noted that argument was not only advanced by the Obama administration, which is challenging the law, but also by officials from more than a half-dozen foreign governments.

Clement, in his petition to the high court, said the arguments by the Department of Justice, which is challenging the law, and the lower court rulings fail to understand the nature of federalism.

"The baseline assumptions of our federal system are that states have plenary police power and that cooperative law enforcement is the norm,'' he wrote. "States, unlike federal agencies, are not creatures of the federal Congress and do not depend on federal statutes for authorization.''

The law contains several provisions designed to give police more power to detain and arrest suspected illegal immigrants.

Sections placed on hold include:

- Requiring a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped.

- Forbidding police from releasing anyone they have arrested until that person's immigration status is determined.

- Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry federally issued documentation.

- Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.

- Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident.

Nothing requires the Supreme Court to even consider the state's request to review the injunction. They could instead wait until Bolton rules on the legality of the law -- something that won't happen this year -- and goes through the regular appellate process before looking at the issue.

But the justices may want to jump in anyway.

Since Arizona enacted SB 1070, several other states have crafted their own versions. And the Department of Justice, which sued to block the Arizona law -- and got the injunction here -- is seeking to bar enforcement of a similar Alabama law.

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/arizon ... 002e0.html

Oh this is going to be so exciting! Should be a slam dunk if the justices follow constitutional law. Funny how that little word can be so big...
if

Related: http://www.alipac.us/ftopic-246448-0-da ... rasc-.html

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

Oh this is going to be so exciting! Should be a slam dunk if the justices follow constitutional law.

I am excited too! I think we will win this!