Lawsuits Show U.S. Supreme Court Headed for Tough Immigration Ruling

States such as Arizona, Alabama and Georgia argue that they are within their rights when they authorize local police to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.


Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Two federal court cases in Georgia and Arizona this week on state immigration laws are turning up the heat on the Supreme Court as it prepares to hear arguments this month on the emotional issue.

States such as Arizona, Alabama and Georgia argue that they are within their rights when they authorize local police to enforce federal laws against illegal immigration.

The U.S. Justice Department says only federal government agencies can enforce immigration laws.

At the heart of the issue is the fate of more than 12 million immigrants living in the United States illegally.

gantdaily.com
Tom Ramstack – AHN News Legal Correspondent

As the issue moves closer to a Supreme Court judgment, protests nationwide are becoming more frequent and more heated.

When the case involving Alabama and Georgia’s laws came before the U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Thursday, the three-judge panel declined to issue a ruling.

“The panel has conferred preliminarily and we have agreed not to issue any opinions in this case until the Supreme Court has decided the Arizona case since I believe that some of these provisions of both the Georgia law and the Alabama law are very similar to the provisions in Arizona,” Judge Charles Wilson said.

Spectators packed the courtroom while protesters outside yelled loudly, saying, “Hate hurts.”

The “provisions in Arizona” refer to Arizona law SB 1070, which was the first state law to try to manage illegal immigration independently of federal agencies by empowering local police to question and arrest illegal immigrants.

It was soon followed by similar state laws Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.

The American Civil Liberties Union put out a statement this week saying, “In Alabama, the one state where courts have allowed a broad set of novel restrictions to go into effect, a humanitarian and civil liberties crisis has ensued. Terrified parents have kept their children out of school to avoid the threat of immigration queries. Families have lost their water service because they lacked government-issued ID. Immigrants have been told by landlords that they are no longer welcome as renters since their leases are unenforceable. And the law has unleashed widespread bigotry, fostering prejudice and a climate of fear and suspicion.”

State lawmakers respond by saying their social services are being overwhelmed by illegal immigrants, crime is rising and the immigrants are taking jobs away from Americans.

A characteristic common to the state laws is that when the laws are challenged in lawsuits, state courts approve them but federal courts strike them down.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco struck down the police enforcement provisions of Arizona’s SB 1070.

A federal judge in Arizona on Wednesday blocked provisions of the law that sought to prevent day laborers from gathering in certain locations where they can be hired to perform odd jobs.

The arguments presented in court this week give a glimpse of what the Supreme Court will hear soon. A Supreme Court judgment is expected in June.

During the hearing in Atlanta, Judge Wilson speculated about what would happen if all states adopted their own laws against illegal immigration.

He said the Homeland Security Department would be overwhelmed with immigration status requests on persons stopped and questioned by police.

“You would have to create an entirely new bureaucracy, wouldn’t you, just to respond to these requests,” he asked attorneys for the states of Georgia and Alabama.

An attorney representing the states said the laws make it optional for police to question suspects about their immigration status.

She also denied the state laws interfere with federal authority over immigration and foreign relations.

One of the controversial provisions of the Alabama law would deny public education to the children of illegal immigrants.

Cecillia Wang, an American Civil Liberties Union attorney, asked the court to issue an injunction to block the Alabama law immediately.

“The plaintiffs that we represent in this case are suffering an ongoing harm because of HB 56 and these particular provisions,” she said.

Instead, the court decided to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on the issues.