Updated 4 p.m.
A federal judge today halted key provisions of Arizona's controversial new immigration law, holding that enforcement of the law would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy.
Judge Susan Bolton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of the provisions, which would have taken effect on Thursday.
Bolton enjoined one provision that required police to make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested. Other portions of the law that are subject to the preliminary injunction include those making it a crime for an alien to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers and making it a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work.
“The Court by no means disregards Arizona’s interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money,” Bolton said in the 36-page ruling (.pdf). “Even though Arizona’s interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”
The Justice Department on July 6 filed the suit against Arizona seeking to block the enforcement of the immigration law on the ground that federal law pre-empts the state’s action. Click here for a background story.
A Justice spokeswoman, Hannah August, today issued a statement that said: "While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive. States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."
Chief counsel of The Washington Legal Foundation, Richard Samp, said in a statement that Bolton's ruling "cries out for appeal." The WLF participated in the litigation in defense of the state law.
Bolton, according to Samp, had no reasonable basis to determine the Arizona law would interfere with federal law. "It is extraordinary for a federal judge to enjoin enforcement of a state law even before the law is allowed to go into effect," Samp said.
The "law" behind both the first two Comments here is just plain wrong, as I understand it.
Mr. South compares a Federal power (controlling immigration) with State powers (health, education, welfare and "police powers"). He concludes that the Feds have no more right to exercise a Federal power than they do a State power. Huh??
Mr. Ramos considers threats/plans to "appeal" a preliminary injunction. Huh?? - no such thing exists. True, the Supreme Court's "Circuit Justice" assigned to the 9th Circuit would surely decline to overrule the district judge and vacate the injunction, if the aggrieved party fails to ask first that a Judge of the 9th Circuit itself do so. But either one has statutory power to overrule the district judge now.
Posted by: Andy von Salis | July 28, 2010 at 10:14 PM
I wonder what would be the reaction if Arizona continued to enforce the state law? Who would stop them? The military? I can just see that happening. The Justice Department? The FBI?? By the time that the US Justice Department got it collective feet out of its collective mouth, precedent would be on its way to be established with some degree of success in enforcing the law. And oh yeah, where does the Mexican President get off making a public statement of support for the injunction!
Posted by: Ed Kimel | July 28, 2010 at 07:34 PM
Sure, or you could say this:
"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken [education] system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal [education initiatives] and would ultimately be counterproductive."
Translation: "We should be in control...yeah, you all know that we're not, in fact we don't even really care...but it's our job, and we want to continue doing it badly."
We have a "patchwork of state and local policies" about practically everything. That's how you find out what works, and what works in one place may not work in another. The states are the best place for this to be figured out, where it can be done practically, with immediate understanding of the impact on business in that area, rather that in the severely removed and way, way, way more politicized halls of the federal meddlers.
Posted by: Michael South | July 28, 2010 at 05:51 PM
Folks in Arizona are already saying they plan to appeal today's decision to the US Supreme Court. I'm not a lawyer, but, if I remember correctly from my one college class on Constitutional Law, the decision first has to be appealed to the 9th Circuit Court. Then, if opponents fail there, they have to ask for a Writ of Certiorari from the Supreme Court. It's the court's discretion if they grant that writ. Correct?
Posted by: Fred Ramos | July 28, 2010 at 05:35 PM