Thread: U.S. Supreme Court rejects Alabama request to consider key part of immigration law

on April 29, 2013 at 8:36 AM, updated April 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM
By Brian Lawson
al.com

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Alabama's request for the high court to grant oral arguments over a part of the state's immigration law that made it a crime to harbor an illegal immigrant.

The court's decision was announced shortly after 8:30 a.m.

The decision marks another setback for Alabama's tough immigration law that passed in 2011.

Alabama had asked the high court to consider the case after an injunction was issued by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last year. Attorneys for Alabama had argued the court had erred in finding that the federal government's laws concerning harboring pre-empted the need for an Alabama law.

The Supreme Court's decision was announced this morning following a regular conference by the justices on Friday. During those conferences the court considers what cases to hear in the next court term, which begins in October.

Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with the decision not to hear the case, but no opinion was issued.

The immigration law drew national attention with immigrant rights groups criticizing the measure as excessively harsh and supporters of tougher immigration laws hailing Alabama's efforts.

The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked the harboring measure last year. Alabama has argued the provision does not interfere with federal authority over immigration law. Alabama has also argued that Congress has given business owners the right to sue companies who flout immigration law.

"It is implausible that Congress meant to allow individuals to seek sanctions against these businesses for harboring yet simultaneously preempted state officials from doing the same," attorneys for Alabama argued in a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued Alabama in 2011 to block the state's immigration law from going into effect. The DOJ has argued the Supreme Court should not grant Alabama’s request to hear the harboring case.

The DOJ argued federal immigration law preempted state law in most cases and that Congress had already addressed the conduct covered in the Alabama law.

Alabama told the high court that nine other states are also urging the justices to take up the issue. Alabama Solicitor General John Neiman said the states that also filed briefs in support of Alabama's petition to the court were Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Oklahoma and South Carolina.

Several provisions in Alabama’s immigration law have been blocked, including a measure that required public schools to gather immigration data about new students, a measure that criminalized a person who entered the U.S. illegally from asking for work and a provision that barred entering a contract with a person known to be in the U.S. illegally.

Last year the Supreme Court blocked much of Arizona's immigration law, ruling the federal government had the chief role in setting immigration law. But the court also ruled states could play a role in enforcing immigration laws. It let stand an Arizona measure -- also adopted in Alabama -- that directs police to conduct immigration status checks during traffic stops and other routine law enforcement contact.

The harboring provision was criticized by three of Alabama's largest churches. Leaders from the Episcopal, Roman Catholic and United Methodist churches sued to block it, arguing the measure criminalized basic aspects of their ministry including transporting, sheltering, feeding and clothing the poor.

A U.S. District Court in Birmingham blocked the measure on technical grounds, finding that it conflicted with federal law.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2013/04/post_52.html

They are starting to flock into the Walmarts with their EBT cards and their anchor carriages. JMO

Added to Homepage:
http://www.alipac.us/content.php?r=1...mmigration-law