Thread: Plaintiffs want Alabama immigration law challenge to move forward, Alabama wants to w

Plaintiffs want Alabama immigration law challenge to move forward, Alabama wants to wait for U.S. Supreme Court

By Brian Lawson
on January 02, 2013 at 4:23 PM, updated January 02, 2013 at 4:35 PM
al.com


Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is flanked by Sen. Scott Beason, R-Gardendale, left, and Micky Hammon, R-Decatur, right, as he speaks before signing into law what critics and supporters are calling the strongest bill in the nation cracking down on illegal immigration, on Thursday June 9, 2011 at the state Capitol in Montgomery, Ala. (AP Photo/Montgomery Advertiser, Mickey Welsh)

HUNTSVILLE, Alabama -- Plaintiffs suing Alabama over its immigration law want the case to move forward, but the State of Alabama wants to wait until March, as it weighs an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The filing does not indicate if Alabama will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn injunctions by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals that blocked Alabama's immigration law provisions that required immigration status checks for new public school students, blocked Alabama's ban on contracts with illegal immigrants and barred the state from criminalizing harboring and transport of illegal immigrants.

The harboring and contracts provisions were blocked by the appeals court stemming from a lawsuit brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

The schools provision ban was included in a ruling in the case involving the group of plaintiffs.

An appeal to the appeal court ruling in the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit has to be filed with the U.S. Supreme Court by Jan. 15.

The other lawsuit filed by 36 plaintiffs and led by the Hispanic Interest Coalition of Alabama and includes labor unions, interest groups and individuals. An appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in that case must be filed by Feb. 25.

The joint status report filing requested by the U.S. District Court in Birmingham was submitted Monday.

The HICA plaintiffs contend in the filing that further delay only increases injury already caused by Alabama's far-reaching immigration law. The law was passed in 2011 and amended last year.

The 11th Circuit did not block the law's provisions requiring law enforcement to engage in immigration status checks during traffic stops and other police contact and said a person can be detained during an immigration status check.

The HICA plaintiffs told the court they plan to use the discovery process to determine how the immigration law, known as HB56, is being carried out in Alabama.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June in the Arizona immigration law case that immigration policy and enforcement is primarily the job of the federal government. But the court also found that local police can play a role in immigration law enforcement.

The court left open the questions of how long a person can lawfully be detained and investigated and the HICA plaintiffs said they want to use that framework in looking at the effects of Alabama's law.

They argue that there has been no indication if Alabama will seek a U.S. Supreme Court appeal and no way of knowing if the court will agree to hear it.

They oppose Alabama's requested delay until mid-March, arguing that the Supreme Court wouldn't be able to take up the case until the October 2013 term.

The plaintiffs propose filing an amended complaint 21 days after the U.S. District Court in Birmingham lifts the stay in the case. Then, Alabama would have 30 days to reply to that filing.

Alabama wants the appeals proceedings to be "definitively concluded" before moving forward. They recommend reporting back to the court on or before March 11, 14 days after the deadline for the Supreme Court to grant "cert," -- word that it will hear the case.

Alabama notes in the filing that it decided to sum up its position "succinctly" for the court, but if U.S. District Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn wants a longer explanation of its reasoning, the state will provide it.

One Old Vet

Plaintiffs want Alabama immigration law challenge to move forward, Alabama wants to wait for U.S. Supreme Court | al.com

Related ..

States' anti-immigration laws and Alabama’s HB 56

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief Supporting Constitutionality of Alabama’s Tough Law on Illegal Immigration

January 5th, 2012

ANN ARBOR, MI – Continuing its support of states that enact tough illegal immigration laws, the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm, based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, filed a brief supporting Alabama’s recently enacted law.

The Law Center’s brief was filed on Tuesday, January 3, 2012, in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of United States v. Alabama, a case brought against the state of Alabama by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) to stop it from enforcing laws against illegal immigrants found in that state. The Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments this March. [read brief here]

In September 2010, the Thomas More Law Center also filed a brief in the United States Supreme Court supporting Arizona’s illegal immigration law. That law was also challenged by the DOJ. In their brief, the Law Center argued for the need of the U.S. Supreme Court to review and reverse the decision of the lower courts. The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear oral arguments in United States v. Arizona during its Spring 2012 term.

Because the DOJ has refused to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration, several states have acted to protect their citizens by passing laws to insure their safety, including Arizona, Alabama, Utah, Indiana, Georgia, and South Carolina.
Instead of stepping up its enforcement of federal laws passed by Congress prohibiting illegal immigration, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against states that have tried to protect their citizens from the economic, social and public safety impact illegal immigrants have on their states. The DOJ’s primary contention is that federal law pre-empts state law in this area as the federal government holds the exclusive right to regulate immigration.

In response to DOJ’s contention, the Law Center posits “States, and not the federal government, have the paramount right to exercise their police powers to provide for the physical protection and safety of persons within their respective borders.”

Moreover, DOJ seeks to strike down the state laws under the non-enforcement policies of the Obama administration, and not under the actual authority or intentions of Congress, which passed laws prohibiting illegal immigration and providing for the removal of illegal immigrants. The plain fact is that state legislation enforcing the illegal immigration laws does not conflict with Congress’ intentions and existing federal regulations.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, “It’s clear that the DOJ is shirking its responsibility to enforce the laws against illegal immigration for political reasons. The Law Center views their refusal as action that jeopardizes our national sovereignty and security. If we can’t protect our borders and citizens from illegal immigrants, in time we will lose our country.”

The Thomas More Law Center defends and promotes America’s Judeo-Christian heritage and moral values. It supports a strong national defense and an independent and sovereign United States of America. The Law Center accomplishes its mission through litigation, education, and related activities. It does not charge for its services. The Law Center is supported by contributions from individuals, corporations and foundations, and is recognized by the IRS as a section 501(c)(3) organization. You may reach the Thomas More Law Center at (734) 827-2001 or visit our website atwww.thomasmore.org.

Thomas More Law Center Files Brief Supporting Constitutionality of Alabama

The immigration law is working.
Alabama's economy a top 5 performer to close out 2012, report says


By Alex Walsh |
on January 22, 2013 at 10:35 AM





Three-month change to the Philadelphia Fed's coincident index. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia.

Alabama's economy saw some of the most dramatic improvements of any state over the last three months of 2012, one study shows.

From September to December, Alabama saw a 1.23 percent increase in its coincident index -- a statistic designed and tracked by the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia. The coincident index combines four factors -- total jobs, unemployment, total wages, and hours worked in manufacturing -- to come up with one number to assess the health of each state's economy.

Over the last three months of 2012, only four other states -- Utah, South Carolina, Idaho, and Nevada -- saw stronger growth than Alabama.

A sharp decrease in Alabama's unemployment rate at the end of the year likely fueled the state's improved score. After peaking at 8.5 percent in August, Alabama's unemployment rate dropped dramatically over the last four months of the year, falling to 7.1 percent in December.



Unemployment rates for 2012. Alabama's is in blue; the U.S. rate is in red. Source: Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis.

The full-year picture of Alabama's unemployment rate is not quite as positive, especially when compared to the nationwide picture (left).

Despite having fallen 0.7 percentage points from January to December, a sharp climb in the rate between April to August suggested a negative environment for labor. Similarly, the change to Alabama's coincident index over the entirety of 2012 was more mediocre, ranking 30th among states.

The number of jobs supported by Alabama's economy grew just 0.6 percent over the past year, according to the Department of Labor's latest estimate. The nationwide economy is adding jobs much more quickly, with employment growing annually at a pace near 1.5 percent.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/01/alabamas_economy_a_top_5_perfo.html#incart_river_d efault