Supreme Court Strikes Down Most of Arizona's Immigration Law

[Theophylact]

Upholds its "Papiere, bitte" provision:

The Supreme Court on Monday rejected much of Arizona’s tough new immigration law but allowed one key provision to stand, saying federal law did not pre-empt the state's instruction to its police to check the immigration status of people they detain.

Several other important provisions of the law conflicted with federal laws, the court found, rejecting provisions that made it a state crime for immigrants not to register with the federal government or to seek or hold jobs without proper documents, and to make warrantless arrests of some people suspected of being deportable.

The Obama administration had urged the court to strike down the whole law, including its provision requiring state law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are not in the United States legally. That provision also requires that the immigration status of people who are arrested be determined before they are released.

Except on the one provision -- to be sure, the one that had seized the most public attention -- the Supreme Court's decision affirmed the finding of a San Francisco appeals court that had blocked the Arizona statute from taking effect for the time being. It sent the case back to the appeals court.

Monday's decision, written by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, was 5-3; Justice Kagan was recused because of her previous role as solicitor general. Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

But on the question of allowing the status checks, the court was unanimous.

However,

Even after the Supreme Court’s ruling that one key provision was not automatically pre-empted, immigration groups will be able to challenge it based on an argument that the court was not considering on Wednesday: That the law discriminates on the basis of race and ethnic background.

[MTAtech]

Vhere are you papers?

[tony_j15]

While I detest the way Arizona is going about asking for ze papers, having SCOTUS blanket outlaw the practice would not be good precedent, IMO.

[Chuckiechan]

You need probably cause to "detain", and when you "detain" you often search a vehicle, so there is little difference asking for proof of citizenship.

What's the problem, citizenship or police power?

It can be summed up this way: "Is being in the USA illegally against the law?" If it is, then it's law enforcements' job to deal with it.

[Theophylact]

What's the problem, citizenship or police power?

It can be summed up this way: "Is being in the USA illegally against the law?" If it is, then it's law enforcements' job to deal with it.

The question is, which law enforcement? The Supreme Court held that enforcement of immigration law is a federal prerogative.

[Chuckiechan]

But that doesn't stop the state from doing it's part. Bank robbery is a federal crime, but local police arrest the perps because it's also a violation of local laws.

They can come to California where they will be all air conditioned, fed, clothed, and made cozy!

[MegalosSkylaki]

The question is, which law enforcement? The Supreme Court held that enforcement of immigration law is a federal prerogative.

Not quite that way as I understand it as presented in this case.

The issue is that there is already Federal Law regulating immigration and now a State law was passed regulating immigration so the issue arises whether a State law can prempt an existing Federal law. Immigration is not a specificaly enumerated police power of the States as some functions are by the Constitution but a Federal function and that was doubtlessly why SCOTUS would not allow a State law to overide Federal jurisdiction. Now if there was not a Federal law on the books regulating immigration perhaps a different decision would have been reached.

It is odd that the three dissenters were Alioto, Scalia, and Thomas. I would think they would have been strong defenders of the Division of Powers Doctrine i.e. State vs Federal powers as this is not clearly a States Rights issue.

Perhaps they took into account that the Federal immigration laws were arguably not being enforced by the Federal Government so it fell to the States to defend themselves as best they can absent Fedral enforcement of their borders. It would be interestiong to read the dissenting opinion(s).

MegalosSkylaki

PS. If the State of Arizona can determine the immigration status of anybody it arrests it has every motive to arrest anybody it suspects--not of committing a crime in the ordinary sense--but of being an illegal immigrant. The proponants of the Arizona law have hence Won this case by being able to retain and enjoy the "fruits of the poison" and arrested-while-Hispanic is now settled law to be legal in Arizona.

[Chuckiechan]

The dissenting argument has to be that if the federal government chooses not to enforce the borders, there is no border enforcement. If there is no border enforcement, borders are merely lines on a map.

Arizona should set up a train depot and ship them to Washington DC, and let them whore out the labor market there.

[MegalosSkylaki]

The dissenting argument has to be that if the federal government chooses not to enforce the borders, there is no border enforcement. If there is no border enforcement, borders are merely lines on a map.

Arizona should set up a train depot and ship them to Washington DC, and let them whore out the labor market there.

Read Robert D Kaplan

Empire Wilderness : Travels into America's Future and some other books where he argues that Globes and Maps that we look at aree largely fictious and the World is devolving into Shanty-City States with international bounderies not only porous but scintillating like a broken neon lamp. In one article he defines the southern border of the United States as south Tucson--and that was about 10-15 years ago.

MegalosSkylaki

[Theophylact]

It is odd that the three dissenters were Alioto, Scalia, and Thomas. I would think they would have been strong defenders of the Division of Powers Doctrine i.e. State vs Federal powers as this is not clearly a States Rights issue.

Har de har har. Alito, and even more so Scalia, are entirely results-driven; when it suits them to be states-rightists, they are, and when it suits them to be federalists, then that's what they are. Deference to the legislature? Then forget Citizens United.

Read Scalia's bench statement. It's an out-and-out attack on Obama's immigration policy, including his recent "Dream Act Lite" order. Scalia has entirely dropped any pretense of judicial neutrality.

[Epidemic]

Perhaps they took into account that the Federal immigration laws were arguably not being enforced by the Federal Government so it fell to the States to defend themselves as best they can absent Fedral enforcement of their borders. It would be interestiong to read the dissenting opinion(s).



Can the state now sue the federal government for not doing their job? i mean if they wont allow the state government to defend it's own labor market then doesn't that job then fall back to the FED?

[Theophylact]

It would be interestiong to read the dissenting opinion(s).

Go right ahead. You'll find that the majority opinion discusses directly many points raised in the dissents.

[Chuckiechan]

I think I'll wait for the layman's version...

One part they didn't like was for Arizona to have a separate penalty for illegal immigration. I can agree that they should not be in the penalty business unless they break state law by using forged or stolen documents to work.

So they can just turn them over to ICE. And Big Sis said she is going to refuse to take Arizona's calls to check immigration status except when felonies are involved.

So Big Sis @ Homeland security has said she will ignore Arizona's attempts to police the border, and therefor there will be no more border enforcement at the local level. So come one, come all, the Arizona door to the USA is open compliments of Obama.

Let's hire some of them to wash the dirt of this sign:

Phoenix is a major city ofthe United States, yet signs along an interstate highway30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away. One reads, “DANGER—PUBLIC WARNING—TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED / Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area / Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed.”

What a mess. I was advised not to go where I used to quail hunt down there by Tucson due to the danger of criminals. Trust me. For the people who live there and visit there, it's not just a legal exercise.

[Theophylact]

I think I'll wait for the layman's version... .

Who will translate it for you ? Have you no faith in your own reading-comprehension skills?

I'm sure it's a lot shorter than much of what you read.

[tony_j15]

IMO, SCOTUS opinions are very easy to read in comparison with most legal papers or technical/scholarly writing. The Justices can be almost conversational, and are usually very clear and concise (except when they don't want to be).
And if one wants the layman's version, just read the syllabus!

[pickel]

Quote:
Phoenix is a major city ofthe United States, yet signs along an interstate highway30 miles to the south warn the public to stay away. One reads, “DANGER—PUBLIC WARNING—TRAVEL NOT RECOMMENDED / Active Drug and Human Smuggling Area / Visitors May Encounter Armed Criminals and Smuggling Vehicles Traveling at High Rates of Speed.”

Sure am glad the Mississippi has Firearms Reciprocity with Arizona !!!!!!!!!


Now , that we have the Illegals taken care ( for the moment), I'm waiting for our learned Justices to rule on Obombma's Healthcare Fiasco.
Hang on the your Gall Bladders and Kidneys , its coming.
Wonder if all those who lose their health ins. will be eligible for Medical Marijuana ???
Might as well get high, if you gonna die !!!!!!

[MTAtech]

The layman's version is that the SCOTUS struck down most of the AZ law and the rest they'll wait until implemented to decide whether that's unconstitutional too.

[Theophylact]

The layman's version is that the SCOTUS struck down most of the AZ law and the rest they'll wait until implemented to decide whether that's unconstitutional too.

Basically, that's what Walter Dellinger said:

Here are the Arizona provisions the court struck down:

• The provision making it a crime to be present in Arizona without carrying an alien registration document
• The provision making it a crime for an “unauthorized alien” to look for work or take a job
• The provision allowing an Arizona law enforcement officer to arrest anyone that the officer believes has committed a crime that would make him deportable.

Here are the Arizona provisions the court held were valid:

• No provisions. Not any. None.

The court did hold that it was premature to invalidate the fourth provision at issue. This part of the law does two things: 1) It requires state officials to determine the immigration status of any person they stop on some other legitimate basis (if they have reason to suspect the person is in the country unlawfully), and 2) It requires that the police must have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released. The court did not pass final judgment on the first part, the mandatory status check. And it strongly indicates that the second part would be unconstitutional if it were read to allow prolonged detention. “Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns,” the court says. And if—if—the the provision “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 likely would survive preemption…” “Likely would”—if read and enforced by the Arizona authorities in this more benign way. At least “absent some showing” of other adverse consequences. And subject to further civil rights challenges. Rather than uphold this provision, the court notes that “the nature and timing of this case counsel caution in evaluating [its] validity” because the law has not gone into effect and there is thus uncertainty about “what the law means and how it will be enforced.”

[Bill in SD, CA]

I think the big question comes into play if the Supremes uphold ObamaCare.

Would that then mean that illegal aliens living in Arizona will have to buy health insurance?

Bill

[Theophylact]

Well, they could pay a small penalty instead.

(You know, it's not as though they're not paying taxes already.)