Archive for Monday, June 25, 2012

High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law

June 25, 2012


— The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects' status could go forward.

The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

The decision upholds the "show me your papers" requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

The court announced that Thursday would be the last day of rulings this term, which means the decision on President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul probably will come that day.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.

The court struck down these provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.

Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona's law. Parts of those laws also are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.


notajayhawk 6 years ago

So basically, what they said was it's okay for the police to find out if the person they stopped is an illegal immigrant - but it's NOT okay to do anything about it if they are. Just like a lower federal court recently ruled it was okay for Arizona to make voters prove they were the registered voter they claim to be when they come to the polls - but not to ask them to prove they're citizens when they register in the first place.

Dontcha' just love it?

conlawgrad 6 years ago

Sorry, but I don't think you understand the ruling. Immigrants already have to present papers to illustrate that they're admissible to the United States under federal law. The state law made it a state penalty if the alien violated that section (re-written under state law). Therefore, the state law encroaches upon federal law and when that happens, the law of the state will be what federal laws and regulations are...which is that aliens must carry registration papers.

avarom 6 years ago

This is a Joke, the presenting papers part....most undocumented applicants who apply for welfare are not Legally obligated to show proof they are citizens of the USA to obtain a welfare check or federal assistance (food stamps) every month. So, you have to carry registration papers to provide proof of legal status to be in this country, but are not obligated to provide any citizenship proof.... when applying for food stamps or welfare and the interviewing welfare representative is not required to asked! OMG, speaking about a miscarriage of justice, this is a true example. UGH!

deec 6 years ago

If they're all supposedly on welfare, how are they taking all our jobs? Are you planning to move to western Ks to cut up 3-400 pigs or cows per hour? Will you be moving to California to pick fruit or vegetables for pennies a bushel? Maybe if the corporations exploiting the workers paid a living wage, Americans would take the jobs, or the illegals wouldn't be eligible for welfare benefits even when employed.

notajayhawk 6 years ago

We have state laws against murder, kidnapping, drug possession, etc. ... aren't THEY "encroach[ing] upon federal law"?

notajayhawk 6 years ago

And, actually, I think YOU may have misunderstood the ruling. The justices struck down the provisions allowing Arizona police officers to arrest theillegal immigrants. What they allowed to stand was the provision that police officers should ask for those papers you mentioned.

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

A partial win for the tyrant, a loss for American citizens.

beatrice 6 years ago

Who is the tyrant? Is it Sherriff Joe Arpiao?

beatrice 6 years ago

Congress holding someone in contempt -- isn't that the definition of irony?

jafs 6 years ago

But, I thought it was a slam dunk that the law would be upheld, according to some rather conservative folks who post on here.

Almost the entire law was struck as unconstitutional - only the provision allowing officers to check immigration status was upheld, but then they must refer that to the feds to deal with.

It's clear that the federal government is the one with the scope and authority to deal with illegal immigration from this ruling.

jafs 6 years ago

If so, that's a problem, but it's not one that's best solved by states trying to usurp federal authority.

ivalueamerica 6 years ago

of course, you forgot to mention that fewer illegal immigrants have entered the country since Obama took office and more have been deported that during 8 years of Bush combined.

But again, we know you would NEVER let a good fact get in the way of your rant. bless your heart.

jhawkinsf 6 years ago

"fewer immigrants have entered the country since Obama took office" Do you think that the state of the economy has something to do with this? Is your solution to the illegal immigration problem to keep the U.S. economy in a perpetual state of recession, which would discourage immigrants from coming here? Are you praising Obama's strategy of reducing the flow of immigrants by keeping us in recession? The fact is that as soon as the economy turns around, so will the flow of immigrants. And I guess whomever is president then should receive credit for the economy and blame for the flow of immigrants.

conlawgrad 6 years ago

It wasn't ruled unconstitutional. Clearly you can't read a judicial opinion. Most of the law was preempted, meaning that federal law already covers what the state law had said (although one of the parts was clearly unconstitutional on its face but I'm not sure that that part was striken as unconstitutional, I'd have to read the whole opinion) The part that they upheld , which was by far the most controversial, wasn't preempted and wasn't ruled unconstitutional.

jafs 6 years ago

The SC "struck down" almost all of the law.

The part that was the most controversial wasn't the status check, by any means. It was the attempt by the state to take over what are federal responsibilities.

jafs 6 years ago

Also, this is a misleading title for the article - the SC struck down virtually the entire law, allowing only one provision to remain - a better title would be SC rejects almost all of the law.

jafs 6 years ago

Only if you want to ignore the vast majority of the ruling.

Oh wait, that's exactly what you want to do - my bad.

Weren't you the one that was certain the law would be completely upheld at the SC level? Apparently you were wrong.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

The Court did not so much uphold the "show me your papers" provision as put off it's decision until it could see how the provision would be implemented. At issue is what constitutionally permissible factors (if any) can give rise to a "reasonable suspicion" . For example, looking foreign or having an accent would not be constitutionally permissible bases for having a reasonable suspicion that a person is here illegally. I have yet to hear anyone identify permissible factors that would be useful to law enforcement in the field.

woodscolt 6 years ago

Well, at least Kobach is still the big winner. He already cashed his tax payer funded pay checks.

yourworstnightmare 6 years ago

SCOTUS has clearly decided that states cannot pass and enact legislation dealing with immigration. It is a federal issue.

beatrice 6 years ago

Yep. Glad to see police can't stop someone for "looking" illegal. That is not the America any rational people want to live in.

beatrice 6 years ago

3 of the 4 provisions of SB1070 ruled unconstitutional, and the 4th wasn't as much upheld as it was given a nod to wait and see if it is illegal or not. Future lawsuits can still come from it, they ruled.

Glad to see some rational thought still resides within the Supreme Court.

beatrice 6 years ago

It is like the Supreme Court justices just wagged nine fingers in the face of Gov. Jan Brewer.

WilburM 6 years ago

Well five fingers (5-3 decision), with Justice Scalia issuing a 22-page screed against President Obama, kind of a one-finger salute. (and Thomas/Alito also dissenting)

beatrice 6 years ago

Needing relief? Not surprised. You are seeming a bit backed up lately ... or at least your posts are full of it.

love2fish_ks 6 years ago

This makes sense. The domain of immigration is the sole responsibility of the Fed Govt. The states can and do detain for federal arrest (aka call to ICE). The part upheld makes sense as well.

The disgusting part is the comments made by the President and Atty General after the ruling. The President further walking back enforcement of federal law adn the Atty General taking a hostile view toward those who seek to enforce the law that was upheld.

The Atty Gen and President have made law enforcement a political activity. They should be ashamed.

We need LEADERSHIP that will lead to consensus building to fix illegal immigration and the financial fallout (medicade, food stamps, etc) and provide a path to citizenship for certain people. I am sooo ready to go to S. Carolina and push for a draft Hillary campaign. We would not be in this mess of creating hostility between the Fed Govt and States, dividing American's against eachother, ramimng through $1T of stimulus, ObamaCare, etc if we had nominated Hillary.

SnakeFist 6 years ago

By "we the people" you mean "we the majority". The Founders put lots of protections in place to prevent the tyranny of the majority.

beatrice 6 years ago

I am looking forward to the ruling on Thursday. Up or down, it will be interesting to see the way the court decides.

jafs 6 years ago

If they strike the mandate, but leave the vast majority of the law, will you ignore that and claim the SC has obliterated the ACA, just as you have in AZ?

It's hard to understand how you can manage to do that, and not see what you're doing.

jafs 6 years ago

Thanks for refraining from insults.

I agree, by the way, that without some sort of cost sharing/cutting mechanism that the ACA will be problematic.

My best guess is that if the mandate is struck down, which I expect it will be, and should be, that other provisions will be added to help contain costs.

But, you didn't quite answer the question, it seems to me - if the SC declares the mandate unconstitutional, but the vast majority of the rest of it is fine, then the SC hasn't declared "Obamacare" unconstitutional.

jafs 6 years ago

I search in vain for something of substance to respond to in this post.

It seems that you just shift the ground in order to insult and blame Obama or the Democrats, whether or not that's warranted.

jafs 5 years, 12 months ago

But it often doesn't fit.

And, your narrow focus on insulting them results in a lack of coherent argument, and worthwhile discussion of issues.

beatrice 6 years ago

You do know that come November your choice for president will be between someone who has mandated that citizens buy health insurance and someone else who has also mandated that citizens buy health insurance, do you not? Does Romney also count as a "dictator" then?

Your level of hyperbole about Obama has grown exponentially as we get closer to the election. You really need to pace yourself, rockchalk. I'm afraid you will run out of steam by election time.

By the way, based on the questioning of the SC, it also appeared that more of the SB1070 bill would have been upheld as well. I wouldn't count my chickens before the eggs are hatched.

beatrice 5 years, 12 months ago

King Obama ... hehe. Oh, how silly.

If it is any consolation, you sure don't have to worry about Romney rallying the Latino vote.

Oh, wait, he might pick Rick Rubio as his running mate. But of course, that won't register as rallying the Latino vote to you at all, will it? hehe

Commenting has been disabled for this item.