In the Wall Street Journal

OPINION
JULY 30, 2010

Goodbye 'Sanctuary' Cities

Judge Bolton's ruling on Arizona's immigration law empowers states to move against scofflaw municipalities

By WILLIAM P. COOK

Many will see Judge Susan Bolton's decision to block parts of Arizona's new immigration law solely as an affirmation of the federal government's primacy over the states. But a close look at her ruling reveals that she's handed Arizona a significant victory against renegade localities seeking to undercut our nation's immigration laws.

For example, Judge Bolton let stand A.R.S. § 11-1051(A), which prohibits Arizona officials, agencies and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws. A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F), which requires that state officials work with federal officials with regard to aliens unlawfully in the state, will also remain in force.

Her ruling—provided it is adopted by other courts across the country—will drive a stake into the heart of the "sanctuary" movement among cities and towns that feel they have the authority to disregard federal law. Right now, they permit illegal aliens to freely reside within their borders and have access to various benefits that should only be reserved for those here lawfully.

Many local governments—mostly vocally San Francisco, but also Phoenix, Mesa, Chandler and Tucson—have conducted themselves as "sanctuaries." As such, they have directed law enforcement personnel within their domains not to cooperate with state or federal law enforcement in the proper handling, including processing for deportation, of illegal immigrants. The court's decision makes it clear that at least in the case of Arizona, localities can no longer delude themselves into thinking this is acceptable.

The court also left unchanged the provision that permits legal residents of Arizona to sue any state official, agency or political subdivision for not enforcing federal immigration laws to the full extent permitted. Such private rights of action in the context of policy issues are unheard of nationally, and may well be the most important component of Arizona's new law. How these suits are implemented, and the impact they'll have on cities and towns that until now have felt free to pursue whatever course they chose without sanction, will be quite interesting to watch.

In addition, Judge Bolton refused to halt the implementation of a variety of amendments to existing Arizona law—those that pertain to the state's right to control employment within its borders by regulating employers:

•A.R.S. § 13-2928(A)-(B): creating a crime for stopping a motor vehicle to pick up day laborers and for day laborers to get in a motor vehicle if it impedes the normal movement of traffic;

•A.R.S. § 23-212: amending the crime of knowingly employing unauthorized aliens;

•A.R.S. § 23-214: amending the requirements for checking employment eligibility.

Several other provisions of Arizona law pertaining to existing criminal violations also go into effect. First, there is an amendment that would make transporting or harboring an illegal alien an additional offense for a person who has committed another crime (A.R.S. § 13-2929). Another amendment, A.R.S. § 28-3511, calls for the removal or impoundment of a vehicle used to transport or harbor aliens in Arizona illegally.

While there may be joy in certain quarters that Arizona's law enforcement personnel cannot be deputized by their state to enforce federal immigration laws, the reality is that Arizona came away with notable victories that should be acknowledged. Now it must summon the political will to implement them.

http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB1 ... DkyWj.html

Mr. Cook, the former general counsel of the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service, is a partner at DLA Piper in Washington, D.C.