Supreme Court issues a split decision on Arizona immigration law

geeimsobored · Jun 25, 2012

So the Supreme Court just struck down most of the Arizona immigration law (except the part that allows officers to stop and check immigration status)

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480392205316110.html

The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough-immigration law but struck down others as intrusions on federal sovereignty, in a ruling that gave both sides something to cheer in advance of November elections where immigration is a major issue.

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense.

Five justices were in the majority choosing to strike down the three provisions. Dissenting justices argued that the whole law should have been upheld.

Lower federal courts blocked the four provisions from taking effect after Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed the measure in 2010. The courts agreed with the Justice Department that the undermined federal authority over immigration.

The law is part of the broader national debate over immigration, which heated up last week when President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spoke before a group of Hispanic officials.

Mr. Obama touted his announcement the previous week that his administration will stop deporting many young illegal immigrants, while Mr. Romney used his speech to soften his tone on immigration and call for a long-term overhaul that would allow more newcomers to receive green cards. The candidates are both stepping up their appeals to the fast-growing bloc of Hispanic voters.

Democrats have accused the Arizona law's supporters of having an anti-immigrant agenda, while the law's mostly Republican backers say they want to secure the nation's borders.

Arizona's illegal-immigration measure, officially titled the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act and known as SB 1070, reflected outrage among tea-party conservatives over what they considered lax enforcement by federal immigration authorities.

Similar laws were introduced in other states, including Alabama, which recently drew unwelcome attention when executives from German and Japanese car makers that the state had pushed to bring there were arrested for failing to produce immigration papers.

During arguments before the Supreme Court in April, justices suggested it was acceptable for Arizona to make rules in areas where Congress had contemplated an enforcement role for states. They observed that federal law already requires U.S. immigration officials to answer questions from state police about a person's status.

Several said they had trouble seeing constitutional problems in a blanket state policy encouraging police to check the status of people who were stopped if those people looked as if they might be in the country illegally.

But the justices were more skeptical of any state effort to pile penalties on illegal immigrants beyond what Congress envisioned.

Congress has been in a long stalemate over immigration, with proposals for a broad overhaul getting little traction. That has led Mr. Obama to use his executive powers to make some changes.

Following the Supreme Court arguments, the Obama administration announced illegal immigrants wouldn't be placed in deportation proceedings merely for a traffic violation, part of continuing efforts to devote resources to deporting foreigners who have committed serious crimes.

Then on June 15, Mr. Obama said many young illegal immigrants would be allowed to legally live and work in the U.S., sidestepping Congress and using what his administration called prosecutorial discretion.

Under the new rules, an estimated 800,000 young people brought to the U.S. as children could apply for work permits and enjoy a safe haven from deportation. Unlike with the Dream Act, a bill backed by Mr. Obama that has stalled in Congress, they wouldn't be eligible for citizenship.

The debate comes as Hispanics continue to grow as a share of the electorate, particularly in battleground states such as Nevada, Colorado and Florida. Mr. Obama won 67% of the Hispanic vote in 2008. Polls this year have shown the president with a similar lead, but Mr. Romney is making a strong effort to close the gap.
Click to expand...

Major · Jun 25, 2012

geeimsobored said: ↑

The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop.

That section was one of four at issue before the high court. The others make it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, make it a crime for immigrants to fail to carry registration documents, and authorize the police to arrest any immigrant they believe has committed a deportable offense.

Five justices were in the majority choosing to strike down the three provisions. Dissenting justices argued that the whole law should have been upheld.
Click to expand...

From a practical standpoint, what does this mean? A basic reading seems to suggest that cops can still check immigration status, but people aren't required to actually have documentation and the cops can't arrest them anyway - so what good does that do?

rocketsjudoka · Jun 25, 2012

Major said: ↑

From a practical standpoint, what does this mean? A basic reading seems to suggest that cops can still check immigration status, but people aren't required to actually have documentation and the cops can't arrest them anyway - so what good does that do?
Click to expand...

They can report them to ICE.

geeimsobored · Jun 25, 2012

Major said: ↑

From a practical standpoint, what does this mean? A basic reading seems to suggest that cops can still check immigration status, but people aren't required to actually have documentation and the cops can't arrest them anyway - so what good does that do?
Click to expand...

Agreed I personally dont understand it at all.

geeimsobored · Jun 25, 2012

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

They can report them to ICE.
Click to expand...

But they cant detain you. So how do they keep a suspected illegal from running away?

Major · Jun 25, 2012

rocketsjudoka said: ↑

They can report them to ICE.
Click to expand...

For what, though? If they don't have documentation, the cop has no idea if they are illegal or not. You can't report someone for maybe being illegal.

justtxyank · Jun 25, 2012

geeimsobored said: ↑

But they cant detain you. So how do they keep a suspected illegal from running away?
Click to expand...

They can detain you because they are only supposed to check status of those they arrest for other crimes.

justtxyank · Jun 25, 2012

Major said: ↑

For what, though? If they don't have documentation, the cop has no idea if they are illegal or not. You can't report someone for maybe being illegal.
Click to expand...

As it's only supposed to be for someone they arrest, they can find their immigration status without needing them to have docs on them.

Major · Jun 25, 2012

justtxyank said: ↑

As it's only supposed to be for someone they arrest, they can find their immigration status without needing them to have docs on them.
Click to expand...

I guess that makes sense. I would have assumed ICE would already be combing arrest records to identify people illegally in the country. It seems like, if you're ICE and trying to prioritize who to go after, criminals would be at the top of the list.

MoonDogg · Jun 25, 2012

Major · Jun 25, 2012

Also interesting that they didn't actually rule the stop-and-check part constitutional - they basically punted and said they need to see how it's implemented. They left it open to killing that section later depending on how its done.

geeimsobored · Jun 25, 2012

Major said: ↑

Also interesting that they didn't actually rule the stop-and-check part constitutional - they basically punted and said they need to see how it's implemented. They left it open to killing that section later depending on how its done.
Click to expand...

I just read through part of the opinion. That's pretty much what they said. In particular, from the briefing they wrote that "

(2) It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in
practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees
for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This
would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal
framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in
custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and
supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the
law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the
course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been
released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to
federal law and its objectives.
Click to expand...

Forums

Supreme Court issues a split decision on Arizona immigration law

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Major Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Major Member

justtxyank Contributing Member

justtxyank Contributing Member

Major Member

MoonDogg Member

Major Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

Supreme Court issues a split decision on Arizona immigration law

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Major Member

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member Supporting Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Major Member

justtxyank Contributing Member

justtxyank Contributing Member

Major Member

MoonDogg Member

Major Member

geeimsobored Contributing Member

Share This Page

rocketsjudoka Contributing Member
Supporting Member