| |
Raising Arizona
|
|
| |
 On a five to three vote, the Supreme Court knocked out much of Arizona's immigration law Monday—a modest policy victory for the Obama Administration. But on the more important matter of the Constitution, the decision was an 8-0 defeat for the Administration's effort to upset the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
In Arizona v. United States, the majority overturned three of the four contested planks of Arizona's controversial plan to have state and local police enforce federal immigration law. The Constitutional principles that Washington alone has the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" and that federal laws pre-empt state laws are noncontroversial. Arizona had attempted to fashion state policies that ran parallel to the existing federal ones.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and the Court's liberals, ruled that the state flew too close to the federal sun. On the overturned provisions—like making it a misdemeanor to apply for a job without citizenship or a visa—the majority held that Congress had deliberately "occupied the field" under pre-emption doctrine, and Arizona had thus intruded on federal prerogatives.
However, the Justices said that Arizona police will be allowed to verify the legal status of people who come in contact with law enforcement. That's because Congress has always envisioned joint federal-state immigration enforcement and explicitly encourages state officers to share information and cooperate with federal colleagues.
Two of the three dissenting Justices—Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas—agreed with this Constitutional logic but disagreed about which Arizona rules conflicted with the federal statute. The only major dissent came from Justice Antonin Scalia, who offered an even more robust if idiosyncratic defense of state prerogatives going back to the Alien and Sedition Acts. (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself.)
The 8-0 rebuke to President Obama turns on what Justice Samuel Alito describes in his dissent as "an astounding assertion of federal executive power." The White House argued that Arizona's laws conflicted with its enforcement priorities, even if state laws complied with federal statutes to the letter. In effect, the White House claimed that it can nullify any otherwise legitimate state law that it disagrees with. Read more here. |
|
|
Top
|
| |
Scalia: AZ Decision Deprives Sovereign States From Excluding 'People Who Have No Right to Be There'
|
|
| |
 (CNSNews.com) – In his dissenting opinion on the constitutionality of Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law (SB 1070), Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia decried the court’s 5-3 ruling, arguing that it effectively took away a sovereign state’s authority to exclude people who have no right to be in that state. The court struck down three of four provisions of the law.
“Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives states of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there,” Scalia said in his opinion, backed by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.
“Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result,” Scalia said. “I dissent.”
The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Steven Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor. Justice Elena Kagan did not hear the case because of her work with the Obama administration before her appointment to the bench in opposition of the law.
On the 5-3 vote, the court upheld the one portion of SB 1070 that allows law enforcement officers who have stopped individuals for investigation of a crime to seek the immigration status of that individual with federal authorities.
It struck down three portions of the law, including allowing warrantless arrests with “probable cause” of the commitment of a public offense; making it a state crime to fail to carry immigration documents; and forbidding illegal aliens from seeking or performing work.
Calling it an “assault on logic,” Scalia said the Arizona statute is consistent with the “ ‘cooperative’ system that Congress created, for state officials to arrest a removable alien, contact federal immigration authorities and follow their lead on what to do next.” Read more here,
|
|
|
Top
|
| |
High court rejects part of Arizona immigration law
|
|
| |
 WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court threw out key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion could go forward - that police must check the status of people stopped for various reasons who might appear to be in the U.S. illegally.
The court upheld the "show me your papers" requirement, but even there the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. And they removed some teeth by prohibiting officers from arresting people on immigration charges.
The Obama administration had assailed the Arizona law as an unconstitutional intrusion into an area under Washington's control, and the court struck down provisions that would have made state crimes out of federal immigration violations.
But several lawmakers and civil rights groups said the part of the law left in place by the high court was an invitation to racial profiling.
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.
The Arizona decision landed in the middle of a presidential campaign in which Obama has been heavily courting Latino voters and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has been struggling to win Latino support. During a drawn-out primary campaign, Romney and the other GOP candidates mostly embraced a hard line on illegal immigrants, though Romney has lately taken a softer tone.
Obama said he was pleased that the court struck down key parts of Arizona's law but concerned about what the high court left intact.
"No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like," the president said in a written statement. He said police in Arizona should not enforce the provision in a way that undermines civil rights.
"What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform," Obama said. Read more here.
|
|
|
Top
|
| |
Immigration ruling shows clarity need
|
|
| |
The Supreme Court on Monday struck down most of Arizona’s tough immigration law as an unlawful infringement on federal power, but upheld what backers called the “heart” of the law, which lets police stop and question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.
In the complex ruling, all eight justices said police can question the legal status of those they stop, but a 5-3 majority struck down Arizona’s attempts to create state penalties that seek to mimic or, in one case, go beyond the federal law.
“The sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation’s meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse,” Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
The decision was announced a little more than a week after President Obama said he would stop deporting most illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. while they were minors, a move that, coupled with Monday’s ruling, marks a seismic shift in the immigration debate and forces it to the forefront of the national agenda.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, said she will move quickly to begin letting police enforce the immigration status checks, but the Obama administration said it will issue guidance to federal immigration authorities telling them not to bother picking up illegal immigrants unless they have serious crimes on their records or are otherwise considered priorities for deportation. Read more here. |
|
|
Top
|
NOTE: If someone forwarded this email to you and you would like to receive more like this, click HERE to Register. For more information about Tennessee Eagle Forum, go HERE.
|
Forward this email to a friend
| |
|
|
Napolitano Says DHS Will Continue to Decide Which Illegals to Detain, Deport Despite SCOTUS Decision
(CNSNews.com) - Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Monday that her agency will remain focused on prioritizing the removal of certain aliens despite the Supreme Court decision on Arizona’s anti-illegal immigration law.
Napolitano added that the Supreme Court decision will not interfere with the Obama administration’s newly employed policy not to deport certain young illegals.
"I am pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that state laws cannot dictate the federal government’s immigration enforcement policies or priorities. DHS remains focused on enhancing public safety and the integrity of our border by prioritizing enforcement resources on those who are in the country unlawfully and committing crimes, those who have repeatedly violated our immigration laws, and those who recently crossed our borders illegally,” she said in a statement released after the court ruling.
“The Court’s decision not to strike down Section 2 at this time will make DHS’ work more challenging. Accordingly, DHS will implement operational enhancements to its programs in Arizona to ensure that the agency can remain focused on its priorities,” she said.
“Over the past three and half years, this Administration has dedicated unprecedented resources to secure the border and to enforcing our nation’s immigration laws in a firm and reasonable fashion,” she continued. Read more here.
|
|
|
