The court backed a section of the Arizona state law that calls for police to check the immigration status of people they stop. – Supreme Court Upholds Key Part of Arizona Law [Wall Street Journal]
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS jumped in to make the majority and avert a tie, due to Justice Kagan’s recusal, that would throw the whole thing back to Arizona, which resulted in the most controversial section of the state’s law being upheld. It means that when a Hispanic is stopped for any reason whatsoever in Arizona he or she can be asked about their legal status, which was unanimous among the Court.
As Pete Williams of NBC News analyzed, the majority put their feet down that federal law trumps state, which was the bottom line on today’s ruling.
Gov. Brewer was thrilled and short-sided.
Gov. Brewer called the decision “a victory for the rule of law.” She said she recently issued a new order to train officers to enforce the law without racial profiling. “I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully,” she said in a statement.
What Gov. Brewer doesn’t get is that the racial profiling aspect wasn’t before the Court on this one, but you can bet it will be another time, because this ruling leaves the Walking While Brown portion of Arizona’s law whole, so that when someone is challenged he or she can sue.
This isn’t over.
The aspect SCOTUS upheld of Arizona’s law will inevitably be challenged on constitutional grounds when someone asserts racial profiling in a case yet to manifest.
The legal analysis from SCOTUSBLOG:
Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:
1. Police Checks. Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them. It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant. The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
2. State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment. The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced. The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.
3. Ban on Working In The State. Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.
4. Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense. The Court held that this provision is preempted. Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.
Why is it that whenever “Illeagle Immigration” is brought up it is automatically assumed that hispanics are being victimized?
Why is it that when it is mentioned that “immigration laws are going to be enforced”, it is interpreted that Latinos are going to be victimized?
I feel that we should have one set of laws that are objective and applied to everyone fairly. Is there anything wrong with that?
We check the immigration status of people here in Prince WIlliam County, VIrginia. It has been for the best.
Defending our borders is a serious responsibility that our Government refuses to accept.
In this case I think the subject is about the Arizona law where Hispanics were victimized.
Ramsgate – Let me make sure I understand you. There is an “Arizona law where hispanics were victimized.”?
How? Does the law say that hispanics will be victimized? I think it is racist to say that one type of law hurts a minority because of some stereotype that is placed upon them.
THe USA Government should enforce its laws and protect our borders. It is 100% wrong to have subjective enforcement and application of any set of laws. We here so much noise from the USA that other nations must have “A Rule of Law”. Well what about the USA? We also deserve The Rule of Law and not the Rule of whatever Obama and Holder feel like.
The law is so reprehensible only a Republican would think up something like this. It is discriminatory. It was designed to force one group of people (some American citizens) to carry papers at all times, as such it increased the power of the police state. People were guilty until proven innocent. Obama initially made some diluted comments that he opposed the law but he did not immediately take the strong forceful action that was necessary that should have been taken against such flagrant injustice and abuse of power. I repeat, it was victimization.
So this law said that one group of people had to carry papers with them at all times? ANd it also said people are guilty until proven innocent? I do not think that is what the law says. I believe you are misinformed.
“The law is so reprehensible only a Republican would think up something like this. It is discriminatory.”
Ramsgate- I think you should get a better idea of the Republican Party and what great things it has done for the USA and the WOrld. Also take a good look at the Democratic party and the heinous legislation it has supported over the years.
It was those damn public sector union employees again! As I recall, wasn’t there tremendous support from police officer unions for SB1070? Didn’t some of them even go to Washington, DC to lobby Holder for his support?
Hispanics victimized? Ok, let’s discuss specifics. I’ll give you a specific person, then you give me yours. After a few rounds, we’ll take a vote on whose victim list has sustained more serious abridgement of human rights.
1.Phoenix police officer Marc Atkinson.
The supreme court did not uphold the that part of the law. What the court said was they wouldn’t rule on that part because it had not been implemented yet. They said that if questions were raised once the law went into effect they would revisit the issue. From the way the court handled the rest of the law, this part is standing on very thin ice.