Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law
Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law
foxnews.com
The Associated Press
Published December 12, 2011
WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court announced Monday it will hear arguments over Arizona's immigration law after a lower court upheld a Justice Department challenge to void the law, arguing the state can't legislate rules that the federal government is responsible for enforcing.
Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
The case could be heard in April.
The justices -- minus Justice Elena Kagan, who did not participate in consideration of the petition -- said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several provisions in the Arizona law, including one that requires police, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
Like the health care debate, the case adds another politically charged dispute between a Republican-dominated state and the Democratic administration to the court's election-year lineup. On Friday, the justices also intervened in a partisan fight over redistricting in Texas. That case will be heard in January.
The Justice Department sued last year, arguing that Arizona's law goes beyond what the federal government allows in terms of enforcing illegal immigration laws.
Arizona counters that the federal government isn't doing enough to address illegal immigration and that border states are suffering disproportionately.
In urging the court to hear the immigration case, Arizona argued that the administration's contention that states "are powerless to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration standards without the express blessing of the federal executive goes to the heart of our nation's system of dual sovereignty and cooperative federalism."
In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of Arizona's S.B. 1070. Among the blocked provisions: Requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
In October, the federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked parts of the Alabama law that forced public schools to check the immigration status of students and allowed police to file criminal charges against people who are unable to prove their citizenship.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12 ... z1gKvAonC4
US High court to look at state immigration laws
US High court to look at state immigration laws
kgw.com
The Associated Press
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:00 AM
Updated today at 10:06 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on a politically charged law in Arizona targeting illegal immigrants.
The immigration case stems from the Obama administration's furious legal fight against a patchwork of state laws aimed at stopping illegal immigration.
Arizona and other states say the federal government is not doing enough to address illegal immigration and that states on the border with Mexico, including Arizona, are suffering disproportionately.
The administration of President Barack Obama argues that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
There are an estimated 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States and immigration has featured prominently in the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. It is likely to continue to be an important issue through the November election, when Obama seeks a second term.
The Obama administration in its first two years failed in several major efforts to change immigration law but ran into opposition with Republicans making clear that anything suggesting amnesty for those in the country illegally would be rejected.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.
In taking on the Arizona case Monday, the justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the state's law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's immigration status if officers suspect they are in the country illegally.
Arizona wants the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request.
Many other state and local governments have taken steps aimed at reducing the effects of illegal immigration, the state says.
Reacting to the court's decision to hear the case, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer said, "This case is not just about Arizona. It's about every state grappling with the costs of illegal immigration."
The administration argued that the justices should have waited to see how other courts ruled on the challenges to other laws before getting involved. Still, following the court's announcement Monday, White House spokesman Jay Carney said, "We look forward to arguing our point of view in that case when the time comes."
http://www.kgw.com/news/business/135424253.html
Supreme Court to look at immigration law
Supreme Court to look at immigration law
syracuse.com
By The Associated Press
Monday, December 12, 2011, 9:59 AM
Updated: Monday, December 12, 2011, 12:24 PM
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics.
The justices said they will review a federal appeals court ruling that blocked several tough provisions in the Arizona law. One of those requires that police, while enforcing other laws, question a person's immigration status if officers suspect he is in the country illegally.
The Obama administration challenged the Arizona law by arguing that regulating immigration is the job of the federal government, not states. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah also are facing administration lawsuits. Private groups are suing over immigration measures adopted in Georgia and Indiana.
The court now has three politically charged cases on its election-year calendar. The other two are President Barack Obama's health care overhaul and new electoral maps for Texas' legislature and congressional delegation.
Justice Elena Kagan will not take part in the Arizona case, presumably because of her work on the issue when she served in the Justice Department.
Arguments probably will take place in late April, which would give the court roughly two months to decide the case.
Some 12 million illegal immigrants are believed to live in the United States, and the issue already is becoming a factor in the 2012 campaign. Republican Sen. John McCain said recently that large Hispanic populations in his home state of Arizona and elsewhere are listening carefully to what Republican candidates have to say on immigration.
The immigration case before the Supreme Court stems from the Obama administration's furious legal fight against a patchwork of state laws targeting illegal immigrants.
Arizona wants the justices to allow the state to begin enforcing measures that have been blocked by lower courts at the administration's request.
The state says that the federal government isn't doing enough to address illegal immigration and that border states are suffering disproportionately.
In urging the court to hear the immigration case, Arizona says the administration's contention that states "are powerless to use their own resources to enforce federal immigration standards without the express blessing of the federal executive goes to the heart of our nation's system of dual sovereignty and cooperative federalism."
Many other state and local governments have taken steps aimed at reducing the effects of illegal immigration, the state says.
But the administration argues that the various legal challenges making their way through the system provide a reason to wait and see how other courts rule.
Gov. Jan Brewer signed the immigration measure, S.B. 1070, into law in April 2010. The administration sued in July to block the law from taking effect.
In April, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in San Francisco upheld a federal judge's ruling halting enforcement of several provisions of the Arizona law. Among the blocked provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
In October, the federal appeals court in Atlanta blocked parts of the Alabama law that forced public schools to check the immigration status of students and allowed police to file criminal charges against people who are unable to prove their citizenship.
Lawsuits in South Carolina and Utah are not as far along.
The case is Arizona v. U.S., 11-182.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... igh-i.html
Roadmap to Understanding the Ariz. Immigration Case Before t
Roadmap to Understanding the Ariz. Immigration Case Before the Supreme Court
nationaljournal.com
By Fawn Johnson
Updated: December 12, 2011 | 12:41 p.m.
December 12, 2011 | 11:50 a.m.
It was a foregone conclusion that the nation’s highest court would be the final arbiter of just how far states can go in enforcing immigration laws. On Monday, the Supreme Court made it official in agreeing to hear Arizona’s challenge to an Appeals Court decision that halted portions of the state’s controversial immigration law.
By simply passing the law intended to crack down on illegal immigration, Arizona put a chip on its shoulder daring the federal government to knock it off. The pre-scripted showdown will now continue. States such as Alabama and South Carolina, which have passed their own “copycat” laws modeled on Arizona’s statute, will be watching to see how far they can push it. Meanwhile, the impending dialogue on immigration will likely become a campaign rallying cry for Hispanics who want eligible undocumented workers to have the chance to earn green cards and for Republicans who argue that the United States has fallen down on the job in enforcing immigration laws.
Arizona’s Republican Gov. Jan Brewer argues that the state had no choice but to take immigration enforcement into its own hands because Congress has failed to enact any changes that would stop the flow of illegal immigrants into the state. In April, a federal Appeals Court upheld an injunction against the portions of Arizona’s law that require police officers to check immigration status during traffic stops and routine arrests. The United States sued the state after the measure was enacted, saying that immigration law falls squarely within federal purview.
Brewer is right about the federal government’s failure in one sense. Congress has failed to pass a comprehensive immigration law that would alter how immigration inflows and the current undocumented population are handled. As a result, the immigration problems that have confronted the country for the last 25 years—the inability to deal with illegal immigrants already in the country and the extreme difficulty of migrating here legally—remain unsolved.
Brewer is wrong in another sense. Since an effort to pass a comprehensive immigration bill failed in the Senate in 2007, lawmakers and the administration have consistently funneled more money to the border and cracked down on illegal immigration at both the worksite and in local law-enforcement offices. It’s not a stretch to argue that there has been more immigration enforcement now than ever before.
The high court case will spawn a lot of talk about the government’s ability to handle immigration, but the decision won’t be a referendum on government activity in that area. Instead, it will turn on the tricky legal question of whether the states have any role in enforcing immigration laws. Arizona said in its petition to the high court that it was “acutely aware of the need to respect federal authority over immigration-related matters” when it passed the law, attempting to parallel federal law in many cases. But the federal government argues in its reply that Arizona’s law goes too far because it creates “new state crimes” in immigration and it imposes new requirements on police officers to verify immigration status. It also gives them new arrest authority, which is disallowed by federal law.
The justices could find themselves deadlocked at 4-4 with Justice Elena Kagan out of the decision mix because she argued the government’s position in the case as solicitor general in the Obama administration. In case of a tie, the lower court’s injunction against the immigration law would stand. However, the high court ruled 5-3 earlier this year to allow Arizona to move forward with an earlier immigration law that requires employers to verify the legal status of new hires. That case turned on a different clause in the federal law involving business licenses, but the sentiment of the justices in giving states more leeway could exhibit itself in this case as well.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/roadm...court-20111212
Brewer confident on high court's ruling on SB1070
Brewer confident on high court's ruling on SB1070
kgun9.com
By The Associated Press
CREATED 10:26 AM
PHOENIX (AP) Gov. Jan Brewer says she's confident the U.S. Supreme Court will rule in Arizona's favor by allowing the state to fully implement its controversial law targeting illegal immigration.
The high court on Monday agreed to consider the state's appeal challenging a trial judge's order blocking implementing some provisions of the 2010 law known as SB1070.
Brewer says the case goes beyond Arizona's authority to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens. She says it involves every state grappling with the costs of illegal immigration.
She said at a news conference Monday afternoon that states deserve clarity from the Supreme Court on what role states have in addressing that concern. And the governor add that the court's decision to hear Arizona's appeal means the justices will provide that clarity.
http://www.kgun9.com/news/regional/135469788.html
All Eyes on Supreme Court As Arizona Immigration Ruling Loom
All Eyes on Supreme Court As Arizona Immigration Ruling Looms
waaytv.com
The Associated Press
Last Update: 1:56 pm
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange says he's pleased U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Arizona's law on illegal immigration.
Alabama's new law is similar to the one passed earlier in Arizona, and Strange is currently in court defending the Alabama law against legal challenges. He says Alabama is supporting Arizona in its litigation.
Strange also says he believes the court will uphold the Arizona law, and that will make it easier for a federal appeals court to uphold the Alabama law.
Parts of Alabama's clampdown on illegal immigration took effect this fall, but federal courts ruling in legal challenges filed by the Obama administration and others blocked separate sections of the law.
http://www.waaytv.com/news/local/story/ ... x?rss=2517
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne gives statement regarding
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne gives statement regarding SB1070 to Supreme Court
by KTAR Newsroom
December 12th, 2011 @ 3:14pm
The Supreme Court agreed Monday to rule on Arizona's controversial law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for an election-year decision on an issue that is already shaping presidential politics.
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne gave the following statement shortly after hearing of the Supreme Court's decision.
"The U.S. Supreme Court's grant of certiorari in the S.B. 1070 case is an important step in what I hope will be the ultimate vindication of S.B. 1070. One little-noticed aspect of the 9th Circuit decision to be reviewed is its conclusion that S.B. 1070 unlawfully trespasses on federal monopoly of foreign relations. Arizona has not opened any embassies, consulates, nor has it entered into any agreements with foreign countries. What it has done is pass a law that foreign countries disagree with. This is common. For example, Arizona has capital punishment, which many foreign countries disagree with. If a federal court can cancel state laws on the grounds that foreign countries disagree with them, and this therefore trespasses on the federal monopoly on foreign relations, then the sovereignty of our entire country has been severely weakened.
The Arizona law mirrors federal immigration law in many respects, and gives state and local law enforcement agencies a vital tool to deal with suspected illegal immigrants. This is a reasonable and practical measure that I hope will be vindicated by the Supreme Court."
http://www.ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1477643
