Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona
-
Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday, weighing in on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on a border state’s fierce debate over immigration, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court here said that some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continued to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators on both sides of the law gathered here, and after three hearings in the last two weeks in which the judge peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.
“I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling,” Gov. Jan Brewer said in a statement. “This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.
“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.”
State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and chief sponsor of the law, said in a statement that he was confident that the sections blocked by Judge Bolton will survive on appeal.
“With past rulings supporting Arizona’s employer sanctions law, the courts have made it clear states have the inherent power to enforce the laws of this country,” he said. “I am confident that the courts will back the provisions in SB 1070 temporarily blocked by Judge Bolton.”
Judge Bolton’s ruling seemed destined to do fuel even more rhetoric on the campaign trail, with Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, who opposes the law and is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, quick to praise the ruling and condemn Gov. Brewer, a Republican, for signing it.
“Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state,” Mr. Goddard said.
The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops were scheduled to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.
Legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.
The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.
It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.
Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.
The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. condemned the law.
It also led to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.
The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.
But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted, the administration defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law went too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.
In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.
Judge Bolton, in her three hearings, at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.
“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.
At another point, she asked, “Where is the pre-emption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tactic federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.
John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hewed to federal statutes and followed the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.
He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border — more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state — and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.
“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.
But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.
She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have committed a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.
Judge Blocks Key Parts of Immigration Law in Arizona
By RANDAL C. ARCHIBOLD
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/29/us/29arizona.html
PHOENIX — A federal judge on Wednesday, weighing in on a clash between the federal government and a state over immigration policy, blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law from going into effect.
In a ruling on a law that has rocked politics coast to coast and thrown a spotlight on a border state’s fierce debate over immigration, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court here said that some aspects of the law can go into effect as scheduled on Thursday.
But Judge Bolton took aim at the parts of the law that have generated the most controversy, issuing a preliminary injunction against sections that called for police officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws and that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times.
Judge Bolton put those sections on hold while she continued to hear the larger issues in the challenges to the law.
“Preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely pre-empted by federal law to be enforced,” she said.
“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens,” she wrote. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”
The judge’s decision, which came as demonstrators on both sides of the law gathered here, and after three hearings in the last two weeks in which the judge peppered lawyers on both sides with skeptical questions, seemed unlikely to quell the debate.
“I am disappointed by Judge Susan Bolton’s ruling,” Gov. Jan Brewer said in a statement. “This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens.
“I have consulted with my legal counsel about our next steps. We will take a close look at every single element Judge Bolton removed from the law, and we will soon file an expedited appeal at the United States Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.”
State Senator Russell Pearce, a Republican and chief sponsor of the law, said in a statement that he was confident that the sections blocked by Judge Bolton will survive on appeal.
“With past rulings supporting Arizona’s employer sanctions law, the courts have made it clear states have the inherent power to enforce the laws of this country,” he said. “I am confident that the courts will back the provisions in SB 1070 temporarily blocked by Judge Bolton.”
Judge Bolton’s ruling seemed destined to do fuel even more rhetoric on the campaign trail, with Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard, who opposes the law and is seeking the Democratic nomination for governor, quick to praise the ruling and condemn Gov. Brewer, a Republican, for signing it.
“Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state,” Mr. Goddard said.
The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard troops were scheduled to report to the Southwest border to assist federal and local law enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration’s response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration that has fed support for the law.
Legal experts predict the case is bound for the United States Supreme Court.
The law, adopted in April, was aimed at discouraging illegal immigrants from entering or remaining in the state.
It coincided with economic anxiety and followed a number of high-profile crimes attributed to illegal immigrants and smuggling, though federal data suggests crime is falling in Arizona, as it is nationally, despite a surge of immigration.
Seven lawsuits have been filed against the law, challenging its constitutionality and alleging it will lead to racial profiling.
The Justice Department lawsuit was among the more high profile, filed after President Obama and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. condemned the law.
It also led to mass demonstrations in Phoenix, for and against it, and a national campaign by civil rights groups to boycott the state.
The Mexican government warned its citizens about traveling to the state and filed a brief in court supporting the lawsuits. Its human rights commission was sending inspectors to the border in anticipation of an escalation in deportations.
But the law also has attracted support, with polls showing a majority of Americans support the notion of local police assisting in federal immigration enforcement.
The Obama administration struggled to respond. After the law was adopted, the administration defended its handling of the border and immigration while urging Congress to enact a sweeping change in immigration law.
Justice Department lawyers argued that the state law amounted to regulation of immigration, the exclusive authority of the federal government. They said the law went too far in requiring local police to make immigration checks and that federal agencies would be overwhelmed in responding to the requests.
In addition, they argued that the law could lead to harassment of legal residents and citizens who fell under suspicion by the police and could damage relations with Mexico and other countries the United States relies on for cooperation with law enforcement and other matters.
Judge Bolton, in her three hearings, at times did not sound open to the federal government’s arguments.
“Why can’t Arizona be as inhospitable as they wish to people who have entered or remained in the United States?” she asked Deputy Solicitor General Edwin S. Kneedler last week.
“It is not for one of our states to be inhospitable in the way this statute does,” he replied, echoing arguments from other lawyers who have warned against a patchwork of state and local immigration laws.
At another point, she asked, “Where is the pre-emption if everybody who is arrested for some crime has their immigration status checked?”
She suggested the immigration agency could simply refuse to pick up someone referred by the police, a tactic federal officials have hinted could be their response if the law goes forward. But she seemed reluctant to accept that local police making the inquiry intruded on federal authority.
John Bouma, a lawyer for the state, said the law closely hewed to federal statutes and followed the intent of Congress to give states a role in enforcing immigration laws.
He said Arizona was being irreparably harmed by the flow of immigration across the border — more people are apprehended crossing the border in Arizona than any other state — and the state should not be penalized for stepping in where the federal government has not.
“The status quo is simply unacceptable,” he said.
But Judge Bolton seemed flustered by vague wording in the law and questioned, among other things, if people arrested for any crime would be detained for unusually long periods while their immigration status was being determined, as the law requires.
She also questioned whether local police could arrest somebody without a warrant if they believe they have committed a deportable offense. Determining who gets deported is typically left to a judge.
Comment