Thread: Supreme Court Will Hear Challenge to Arizona Immigration Law

Arizona Illegal-Immigration Law Gets U.S. High Court Review

Dec. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Supreme Court said it will consider reviving the trailblazing Arizona law that would use local police and prosecutors to crack down on illegal immigration.

Already set to rule on President Barack Obama's health-care law by the middle of next year, the justices today added another high-profile case that has implications for similar laws around the country and for the 2012 elections.

The court will hear Arizona's appeal of a ruling that said the state was interfering with the federal government's authority over immigration policy. Arizona, which says its 370- mile border with Mexico is the crossing point for half the nation's illegal immigrants, contends it has the right to tackle a problem that the national government has failed to address.

The lower court ruling "leaves Arizona and its people to suffer from a serious problem without any realistic legal tools for addressing it," Arizona and its Republican governor, Jan Brewer, argued in their appeal. They are represented by former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement.

As with health care, the case is a test of federalism, pitting the federal government against a collection of states. Arizona has support at the high court from 11 other states, including Alabama, which is defending its own illegal- immigration crackdown against an Obama administration lawsuit.


Ultimate Authority


Justice Elena Kagan, who formerly served as Obama's top Supreme Court lawyer, didn't take part in the court's decision to hear the case.

The administration, which urged the justices to reject the Arizona appeal without a hearing, said the law conflicts with Supreme Court decisions establishing that the federal government is the ultimate authority on immigration. U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said that while states can "cooperate" in enforcing federal policy, they can't challenge it.

The Arizona provisions "do not represent an effort to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal immigration law," argued Verrilli, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer. "Instead, they are designed to establish Arizona's own immigration policy, 'attrition through enforcement,' to supplant what the governor called in her signing statement the federal government's 'misguided policy.'"


Justice Department Challenge


The Justice Department sued to challenge the Arizona measure, and a San Francisco-based federal appeals court blocked it from taking effect in April.

Arizona's law, known as S.B. 1070, requires police officers to check immigration status when they arrest or stop someone and have "reasonable suspicion" that the person is in the country illegally.

The measure also requires registered immigrants to carry documentation with them at all times, or be subject to 30 days imprisonment. In addition, the Arizona law makes it a state crime to violate federal registration requirements.

"Arizona has been more than patient waiting for Washington to secure the border," Brewer said in a statement after the court acted. "Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation, and states deserve clarity from the court in terms of what role they have in fighting illegal immigration."


Similar Laws


More than 10 million adults are in the U.S. illegally, according to the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington. At the same time, the number of people seized trying to cross the border is falling. Apprehensions by the U.S. Border Patrol dropped from 1.19 million in fiscal year 2005 to 463,000 in fiscal 2010, according to the agency.

The statute, the first of its kind when signed into law last year, inspired the enactment of similar laws around the country. Arizona is now one of at least 10 states that check immigration status during investigations, arrests or jail bookings, according to the appeal.

"Whatever the court decides, we already know that S.B. 1070 is a wrongheaded policy," said Andrei Cherny, the chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party, in a statement. "It is unjust, divisive, makes our communities less safe and makes it harder to solve the problem of illegal immigration."

A ruling striking down the Arizona law potentially would put more focus on the federal government's role in stopping illegal immigration, increasing the importance of the issue in next year's presidential campaign.


Federal Intervention?


"Maybe this will prompt the federal government to intervene and give us a law that everyone can live with," said Paloma Zuleta, communications director for the League of United Latin American Citizens, a Washington-based nonprofit group that promotes the well-being of Hispanic Americans.

The justices divided along ideological lines in May when they upheld a separate Arizona law that threatens companies with loss of their corporate charters if they hire illegal immigrants. The 5-3 ruling said a federal law governing immigrant hiring leaves room for states to impose their own penalties for non-compliance.

The court will likely hear arguments in April and, as with health care, rule around the end of June.

The case is Arizona v. United States, 11-182.


Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... z1gNERbHa8

Supreme court and immigration
ATLANTA (AP) Georgia Attorney General Sam Olens says he's pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Arizona's law on illegal immigration.

640wgst.com

Olens said he hopes the court's eventual ruling will help settle the ``great uncertainty'' over whether federal immigration rules pre-empt state laws.

The Supreme Court said Monday it would 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.

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.

Read more: http://www.640wgst.com/cc-common/mainhe ... z1gNGyRXab

U.S. Supreme Court look at Arizona immigration law will affect Alabama law

al.com
By Brian Lawson, The Huntsville Times
Published: Monday, December 12, 2011, 6:30 PM
Updated: Monday, December 12, 2011, 6:30 PM

The future of Alabama's immigration law is almost certain to be shaped by the U.S. Supreme Court's decision Monday to consider arguments over Arizona's immigration law.

Some sections of Arizona's law are nearly identical to Alabama's. Those include sections dealing with immigration checks by law enforcement and a section criminalizing job-seeking by day laborers.

Alabama's law goes further in several areas than Arizona's, but the Supreme Court's findings on the constitutionality of those similar sections will be decisive.

Like in the Alabama case, the U.S. Department of Justice sued to block Arizona's law from going into effect. A lower court and a federal appeals court sided with the Justice Department and blocked Arizona's law.

Arizona had made it a crime for a person not to carry an alien registration card, barred illegal immigrants from seeking work and directed law enforcement to make arrests if a person was suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.

Arizona spelled out the law's intent in the introduction.

"The legislature declares that the intent of this act is to make attrition through enforcement the public policy of all state and local government agencies in Arizona," according to the bill's Section 1.

Sponsors of Alabama's law have said the goal of their bill was to get illegal immigrants to "self-deport." The 72-page Alabama act went beyond Arizona's law.

Alabama's law also includes a ban on contracts with illegal immigrants, a requirement for schools to check immigration status of school enrollees, a ban on harboring and transporting illegal immigrants and a ban on government business transactions. None of those issues are part of the Arizona case. Those sections, some of which have been temporarily blocked, are currently before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.

John Carroll, a former federal judge and dean of Samford University's Cumberland School of Law, said the Supreme Court's agreeing to hear Arizona's challenge will result in a far-reaching decision.

"This will ultimately determine the course of the state laws," Carroll said. "It's a supremacy clause case dealing with pre-emption issues. Those are the areas where the Supreme Court says only federal government can legislate in this.

"The question is, is this one of those?"

Like in Alabama, Arizona's attorneys have argued the laws are necessary to help the state deal with the flow of illegal immigrants and that the laws are complementary to federal law. In both cases, the Justice Department has disagreed, arguing immigration law is the exclusive province of the federal government.

Ira Mehlman, media director for FAIR, said the court's agreeing to hear the case is good news. FAIR is a grouped based in Washington, D.C., that wants to see tougher immigration laws.

"It's essential that the highest court in the land establishes what states can and cannot do in regard to enforcing immigration laws," Mehlman said. "We're looking forward to what we believe will be a favorable ruling from the Supreme Court."

Mehlman cited the court's decision earlier this year that upheld a separate Arizona law that gave officials the discretion to withhold business licenses from employers found to be employing illegal immigrants. That law also called for the use of the federal E-verify system to check if an employee is legally entitled to work.

But Kevin Johnson, an immigration law expert and dean of the University of California Davis School of Law, said the court's decision in the earlier Arizona case covered much narrower questions than the current case.

Johnson said it may be significant that Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself from hearing the immigration case. Kagan is a former U.S. Solicitor General and her office dealt with some issues related to the Arizona law. Johnson said if the court were to deadlock 4-4, the lower court ruling blocking the Arizona law would be upheld.

In an analysis written earlier this year, Johnson said Justice Anthony Kennedy is likely the swing vote in the case and that his record doesn't show a fixed view on federal pre-emption cases. Johnson said Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia are likely to side with Arizona, while Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor are likely side with the federal authority argument.

Alabama Attorney General Luther Strange, who has recently advised local governments to stop performing immigration status checks until they are hooked up to a federal immigration database, welcomed the court's decision in a statement Monday.

"Alabama has supported Arizona in its legal effort from the beginning, and Alabama will continue to vigorously support Arizona as the case moves to the Supreme Court," Strange said. "I am confident that the Supreme Court will rule in Arizona's favor, which will give the 11th Circuit all the more reason to uphold Alabama's similar law."

Alabama has had some sections temporarily blocked by federal courts, including the registration card requirement and the section affecting seeking work. Most sections of Alabama's law remain in place. This includes the section allowing local police to check immigration status during stops.

The 11th Circuit is currently scheduled to hear arguments March 1 in the Alabama case. The Supreme Court has not yet set a date for arguments in the Arizona case.

http://blog.al.com/breaking/2011/12/us_ ... arizo.html

Originally Posted by Ratbstard

Originally Posted by Acebackwords

Man, this is exciting! Does anybody have any idea of what the odds are that the ruling will be in our favor?

I'm guessing 5-3.

I'm also wondering why an ex member of La Raza isn't required to recuse herself.

Oh man, thats exciting and encouraging! If we could get this thing passed that would really get the ball rolling our way. FINALLY!

Its obvious that Washington DC is too corrupt to be of any help. If anything, they're the PROBLEM, actively working against the will of the American people. But if we can move this issue to the state level we can really do some damage. Even here in liberal California, people forget that we passed Proposition 187 (the no-welfare-for-illegals bill) by nearly 60 to 40%. But, of course, just like with Arizona, the will of the people was circumvented by the bastards on the federal level. As usual.