Judge Blocks Key Provisions of Arizona Immigration Law
Wednesday 28 July 2010
by: Andrea Nill | Think Progress | Report
A May Day immigration rally participant. (Photo: Joseph Voves)
This afternoon, in a long-awaited decision, 9th Circuit Judge Susan Bolton enjoined several major provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, SB-1070. While it was speculated that Bolton would block parts of SB-1070 relating to warrantless arrests and document requirements, the judge also ended up striking down the law’s most controversial and significant provision: the requirement that police check immigration status. Bolton blocked the following sections of SB-1070 arguing that “the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that…[they] are preempted by federal law” and the “United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm” in the absence of an injunction:
Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070: Requires police to inquire about the immigration status of anyone they stop, detain, or arrest if they reasonably suspect the person is in the country illegally.
Section 3 of S.B. 1070: Criminalizes the the failure to apply for or carry immigration documents.
Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070: Criminalizes the solicitation, application for, or performance of work by an undocumented immigrant.
Section 6 of S.B. 1070: Authorizes the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person “removable.”
Bolton also echoed the criticisms made by SB-1070 opponents over the past few months, noting that “requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is check.” She additionally found that the burdensome verification requirement “will divert resources from the federal government’s other responsibilities and priorities.” However, a few problematic sections remain including the one which allows Arizona residents to sue local police if they believe they are not enforcing what remains of SB-1070 and the creation of a separate crime for knowingly transporting an undocumented immigrant under any circumstance, even in an emergency.
Help fight ignorance. Click here for free Truthout email updates.
Ironically, on the recommendation of Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) — an ardent proponent of SB-1070 — Bolton was nominated to the United States District Court for the District of Arizona by President Bill Clinton back in 2000. During her confirmation hearing, Kyl stated:
Well, there is one person in our state who’s a real expert on this in the judiciary, and that’s Judge Bolton. And because of her expertise and fairness, all of the contending interests from Arizona have been willing to place their concerns before her to be resolved, and she is right in the middle of this important litigation right now. They will be very sorry to see her leave in Maricopa County Superior Court bench. So, I have some mixed emotions in helping to nominate or to confirm Judge Bolton, but that’s how highly thought of she is.
Prior to the announcement of her decision, Kyl speculated that “she will parse the law, that is to say she will perhaps extract certain portions of it that she think might be problematic and might enjoin those portions calling additional briefings from the parties.” Before learning of Bolton’s decision, Gov. Jan Brewer (R-AZ) stated, “I’m confident Arizona will prevail.” Bolton has been described by her peers as an “impeccable” and “fearless” judge whose rulings are “well-reasoned and unambiguous.”
All republished content that appears on Truthout has been obtained by permission or license.
Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today!
Comments
This forum is moderated by software. Please allow up to 15 minutes for your comments to go live and avoid posting the same comment multiple times.
Well, congrats to the
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 23:00 β Carl (not verified)Well, congrats to the Chamber of Commerce and its allies like Truthout for helping crush a grassroots effort at democracy. The boys at Country Clubs are cheering and enjoying a drink.
Did those those stupid workers in Arizona think they could stop Corporate America?
I amazed at the stupidity of some working class Americans. Hundreds of fools showed up to protest this law as directed by Corporate America, and most didn't even realize they were fools. Will they now march down to homeless shelters to help poor Americans? No time for that.
Essentially what Judge
Wed, 07/28/2010 - 23:51 β S. Wolf Britain (not verified)Essentially what Judge Bolton enjoined, which will probably later be struck down, are those portions of the bill which were attempting to set up a "Your papers, please", Nazi-esque, Stasi-esque, KGB-esque, police-state-esque, un-American, unconstitutional policy, including of course racist racial profiling as well. If one is truly a Constitutionalist, they can't fault her for that. But you "right-wingers", neo-libs and/or corporate-fascists may get your way yet, considering the police-state direction the U.S. is already well on the way towards heading, and to establishing, and considering the fact that the Supreme Court has been making more and more unconstitutional rulings like claiming that corporations are supposedly "people" with the same rights. Eventually this matter is going to go to the Supremes, and they may very likely overrule any lower court rulings that strictly upheld and/or uphold the Constitution; for the Constitution is being abrogated more and more.
What is surprising and troubling to me about Bolton's ruling is that, at least as recorded in this article, it appears she did not address the matter of whether those clauses she enjoined are constitutional or not. She may have meant "federal law" to include the Constitution, but I tend to think this article simply left it out, because I find it hard to believe Bolton would not have addressed the constitutionality of the clauses of the bill in question.
Anyway, what Bolton overruled, at least temporarily, was only right for her to do; not that I in any way agree with the federal government's, probably nefarious and/or insidious, reasons for wanting her to rule on the injunction motion as she did; i.e./e.g., overruling state rights and cementing more absolute federal government control over all the states and everyone. The feds will eventually enact, and have upheld, their own federal laws requiring the checking of virtually everyone's identification more and more, and at almost every turn; but they want to be the ones who bring in these fascist police state policies and actions, and not have them brought about through any independence of the states. After all, more and more, and contrary to the Constitution, the federal government doesn't believe in the independence of anyone anymore, nor in any sovereignty for the U.S. itself, as they are making more and more obvious to the non-brainwashed minority in this day and age.
I think that the states
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 01:22 β Anonymous (not verified)I think that the states should forget about making any attempts at making laws to enforce immigration. Because the feds are going to shoot them down legal or not. Instead give them a taste of their own medicine and SUE, SUE, SUE them to ENFORCE immigration laws already in existence.
If the law are on the books, they need to be ENFORCED. If the government does not enforce them, they are responsible every time an incident occurs involving an illegal immigrant. And they should be sued every time an ILLEGAL commits a crime.
Congress should insure that the justice department enforces ALL laws NOT just the ones they like.
AS an American Citizen, I must provide truthful information if I am asked by the Police or many government agencies. Am I now A SECOND RATE CITIZEN, I need to provide this information, but ILLEGAL ALIENS, and also possible TERRORISTS do NOT.
It is time for ALL Americans to band together, and say ENOUGH is ENOUGH.
OUR Constitutional rights are being taken from us day after day, and ILLEGAL ALIENS are being showered with new rights, and immune to LAWS that AMERICAN CITIZENS must obey or do NOT HAVE.
Too many educated people are
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 04:13 β Anonymous (not verified)Too many educated people are either insane or fools. Police are allowed to ask you anything, where do you live, what is your DOB, what is your SSN, have you been drinking ect. If you are uncooperative, you may get a BS ticket for jaywalking or loitering, or arrested.
But, if they ask if you are in the USA illegally, we should be outraged? No, this is all corporate propaganda to fool fools.
We should be outraged about
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 04:33 β S. Wolf Britain (not verified)We should be outraged about them asking us ANY of it without TRUE probable cause; and we should refuse to answer any questions; but, if we do, we will very likely go to jail, and may very likely even be tasered and/or have the crap beat out of us, not to mention having the false charge(s) of "resisting arrest" (and maybe even "assaulting a police office") tacked on as the police habitually do when arrestees haven't done any such thing.
See how they have things sown up so that most people will blindly comply, giving up their own Constitutional rights? People who don't want to go to jail will, in most cases, be good little slaves and answer the unconstitutional questions, because giving up their rights---in essence waiving them thereby---is supposedly better than going to jail. What we've got to stop is allowing people to go to jail for doing nothing but stand up for their rights.
What a travesty. Arizona
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 07:43 β Anonymous (not verified)What a travesty. Arizona enacted this law specifically because the Federal Government has consistently failed to enforce the immigration laws that it itself has passed.
One of the first rules when you find yourself in a hole is to quit digging. The Democrats insist on continuing to dig before November's election. The shovel fulls are flying out of the hole so fast you'd think they were using powered shovels. And now they'll wonder why they lost so many seats in the midterms. Bye Bye Democrats, we knew ye well and at one time we even thought highly of you
Well, looks like we haven't
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 12:41 β Anonymous (not verified)Well, looks like we haven't totally lost our minds yet. I can still feel the consciousness shift when crossing the border between AZ and CA, though. You can still carry a concealed weapon anywhere, right, including the bars? So you real Americans over there could still be vigilantes if you want. When was the last time anyone saw one of your neighborhood white kids seeking lawn mowing jobs in the summer? Anybody see any white folks idling near your local Home Depot seeking day jobs? How about white folks out picking fruit or vegetables in the field, any sightings of that? I wonder what it would cost the US in real dollars to send home our 11M illegals when food, burgers, lawn care, chicken processing plants, construction labor all rose to "white" people rates?
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS NOT
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 13:18 β cheyennebode (not verified)ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS NOT AN INTELLECTUAL EXERCIZE FOR ME..MY AUNT WAS KILLED BY AN ILLEGAL..MY BROTHER GANGED UPON BY A HERD OF ILLEGALS....I PERSONALLY WOULD CHERISH THE POWER TO DEAL WITH MEXICO AND ILLEGALS...AMERICA HAS BEEN A PATSY FOR TOO MANY YEARS NOT TO SEEK VENGENCE...FROM EL MACHOS...VIVA AMERICAN MANHOOD.
Illegals have killed more
Thu, 07/29/2010 - 21:11 β Carl (not verified)Illegals have killed more Americans than terrorists, look it up. This doesn't mean they are more violent, but if they are not here, they can't kill. Facts like these drive anti-American racists crazy.
No one is "illegal",
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 02:13 β Anonymous (not verified)No one is "illegal", Decriminalize cannabis, and allow open borders, problem partially solved. BUT, not for corporations. A primary motivation for their marginalization of human rights is profit.
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 02:13 β
Fri, 07/30/2010 - 08:59 β Anonymous (not verified)Fri, 07/30/2010 - 02:13 β Anonymous You say no one is illegal but I wonder how you'd act if someone you didn't know entered your house and made themselves at home.
Carl, T/O readers know their
Tue, 08/03/2010 - 19:16 β Frances in California (not verified)Carl, T/O readers know their history; you could not possibly know if you liken this Police State law to Democracy. Go back and read about Berlin in the 1930s before you come to T/O babbling about Democracy.