Justice Department Sues Arizona

The federal government has filed its lawsuit asking a federal judge to strike down most of Arizona's new immigration law, declaring that federal law preempts the action by state lawmakers.

“In our constitutional system, the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters. This authority derives from the United States Constitution and numerous acts of Congress,” reads the introduction to the 25-page complaint (PDF).

Lawyers for the U.S. Department of Justice filed the complaint today in U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The lawsuit names as defendants the state of Arizona and Gov. Janice Brewer (R), in her official capacity.

Brewer has repeatedly defended the law as a necessary response to the federal government’s failure to control illegal immigration from Mexico, and she continued to draw support from allies nationwide, including in Washington, as the lawsuit was filed.

The lawsuit makes sweeping claims about the federal government’s power to develop immigration policy. It cites the federal government’s power under the Constitution to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization” — translating, it says, to the regulation of aliens within U.S. boundaries and to the terms and conditions for entry and continued presence.

With the State Department joining as a plaintiff, the lawsuit also cites the president’s authority over foreign affairs. “Immigration law, policy, and enforcement priorities are affected by and have impacts on U.S. foreign policy, and are themselves the subject of diplomatic arrangements,” it says.

Together with the complaint, the department is filing a 58-page motion (PDF) for a preliminary injunction. The law is scheduled to go into effect July 29.

In a news release, Attorney General Eric Holder Jr. focused on two concerns: the impact the law could have on immigrants’ willingness to cooperate with local police in criminal investigations, and the police resources that could be diverted from other investigations.

“Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility,” Holder said. “Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves.”

In response to the lawsuit, a group of 20 Republicans from the U.S. House of Representatives sent Holder a letter protesting that the Arizona law “is harmonious” with federal immigration law.

“Not only does this lawsuit reveal the Obama Administration’s contempt for immigration laws and the people of Arizona, it reveals contempt for the majority of the American people who support Arizona’s efforts to reduce human smuggling, drug trafficking and illegal immigration,” reads the letter (PDF).

The DOJ lawsuit does not seek to invalidate the entire Arizona immigration law, known as S.B. 1070. It targets sections 1 through 6 of the law (PDF), leaving alone sections about employment and the impounding of vehicles. By contrast, the complaint (PDF) filed by in May by the ACLU and others asks to have the law struck down in its entirety.

Still, those civil rights groups and civil libertarians welcomed the Justice Department's action. Munger, Tolles & Olson is representing the coalition pro bono, and the coalition includes the ACLU, the NAACP, and the National Immigration Law Center.

“States planning to follow in Arizona’s misguided footsteps should take note: the United States cannot and should not allow immigrants and communities of color to be targets of hateful racial profiling legislation that puts their civil liberties on the line,” NILC General Counsel Linton Joaquin said in a statement.

To defend the state, Brewer has hired John Bouma, chairman of Snell & Wilmer in Phoeniz, because Arizona’s attorney general, Terry Goddard III (D), has removed himself.

Five DOJ lawyers have their names on the complaint: Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who heads the Civil Division; U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke; Arthur Goldberg, an assistant director in the Federal Programs Branch; and trial attorneys Varu Chilakamarri and Joshua Wilkenfeld.

Updated at 4:23 p.m.

Comments

[don coderre]

So I wonder if you liberals will be happy if someone Illegally comes into your house, What's the diff'.

[Carolyn Sue Barker]

The Dems did not run up the massive debts by themselves. The republicans contribute their share during the last decade. The blame game isn't fun any more so take your lumps Republicans and stop blaming it on all other parties. Do something besides saying no.

[Benito]

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened. All of us ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as one would wish his children to be treated, but this is not the case.

I know the proponents of this law say that the majority approves of this law, but the majority is not always right. Would women or non-whites have the vote if we listen to the majority of the day, would the non-whites have equal rights (and equal access to churches, housing, restaurants, hotels, retail stores, schools, colleges and yes water fountains) if we listen to the majority of the day? We all know the answer, a resounding, NO!

Today we are committed to a worldwide struggle to promote and protect the rights of all who wish to be free. In a time of domestic crisis men of good will and generosity should be able to unite regardless of party or politics and do what is right, not what is just popular with the majority. Some men comprehend discrimination by never have experiencing it in their lives, but the majority will only understand after it happens to them.

[GMan]

Well, Zeke. Since Arizona is not actually writing law that affects citizenship status, or deportation, I'd say that they're not "controlling" immigration in any way.

What they *are* doing, is reporting lawbreakers to the proper authorities (ICE).

[Greg]

Yeah, Arizona, you go get those dirty illegals. Just ignore the fact that most "illegals" actually entered the country legally and simply overstayed. And the fact that our economy would collapse were all of them to suddenly leave. (See:http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/04/b1002793_ct2145825.html). Or the fact that the only American workers threatend by undocumented workers are those who lack a high school diploma (see: http://www.newsweek.com/2010/05/14/why-americans-think-wrongly-that-illegal-immigrants-hurt-the-economy.html)

And the fact that directing officers to question the immigration status of anyone who they believe to be an undocumented person will have a disproportionate impact on protected classes of people, namely those of Hispanic origin.

Please also ignore the fact that the stated rationale about reductions in crime is faulty(see: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/prelimsem2009/table_4al-ca.html or http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/29/arizona.immigration.crime/index.html).

Let's be clear. This is not about illegal immigration, but rather about race and politics. There is a group of people in this country who were and are the majority, but will no longer be in the foreseable future. And that scares them. They speak in code about it with statements like "protecting America for Americans". But what they really want is to stop the population of brown skinned people from growing and disenfranchising them. Notice you never hear a word about undocumented workers from Asia or Europe, even though they make up a sizable portion of the undocumented workforce. It's shameful and embarrassing xenophobia.

The Republicans tried it with the Irish and turned the Irish into three generations of Democrats. Same with the Italians. Looks like they're primed to do it with the Latino population as well.

Santayana said it best: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

[Zeke_ulrey]

Rhetorical query: whose authority is it to control immigration, legal or otherwise?

[JT]

Thank you, craig, ertdfg, and xavier for your insights. I was poised to petition my elected officials to seek secession from this union which refuses to enforce the will of the majority of its citizens. If the Supreme Court doesn't betray us with another decision like the weakening of "honest services" law, I may not have to immigrate to New Zealand.

[me.yahoo.com/a/AnMaZlYY0I5n4nDd85h2dOaX1ZHF8c2ULxIlOfJB0.nVx8SkfHY-]

To call this version of pre-emption "strained" is an understatement. The DOJ has argued, in effect, that the pre-emption doctrine applies to mere public policy preferences as well as to laws and regulations. Of course, Arizona cannot force the feds to take illegal aliens it apprehends, and it doesn't claim to be able to do so. Since Arizona doesn't do anything other than enforce a federal statute it has concurrent jurisdiction to enforce, there is no legal pre-emption issue. In fact, there is no colorable issue to even bring a complaint. This would be summary judgment bait if it weren't such a charged issue.

I suspect the DOJ knows this will be tossed as well as most attorneys who have read the complaint and application for injunction. This is political, not legal, and fairly pathetic.

[Papa Ray]

This is great. Great for the Republicans that is.

This is the dumbest thing that the Obama Administration could have done.

This will assure that democrats lose big come November and Obama is either impeached or loses big if he is stupid enough to run for re-election.

[Judith]

Why is the NAACP involved in an immigration dispute? Just can't resist a good protest, I guess. Go Arizona, win one for the rest of us.

[mike]

"I'd hazard a guess that -- rightfully -- Arizona is about to get her spanking..."

Why? Are you saying that you're completely against enforcing our immigration laws?

[Craig Smith]

Arizona isn't going to get a spanking on this. First and foremost federal law is pretty much established that Interstate and Foreign Commerce authority does not give rise to illegal immigration authority. Nor does the Constitutional Power to establish laws of Naturalization.

Arizona is doing nothing that affects interstate commerce, regardless. Enforcing its own state laws and turning the illegals over to the feds is certainly "intra-state" action only. Arizona isn't deporting anyone or moving across its borders. The Commerce Clause is a dead issue for the DOJ.

Furthermore, the Constitution reserved powers not delegated to the states in the Tenth Amendment: Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The DOJ is weak on this one. I sincerely hope Arizona wins and can get its attorney fees covered.

Craig-
www.lawmanuals.com

[Sharon4anderson]

Thanks for pdf files: Sharon Anderson disagree's with the Fed's Position,
Hopefuly All State Attorney Generals must defend the State and Federal Constitutions as well as our State Laws
http://digg.com/d31VjFh?t

[Adrian Watson]

This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors show meant to appease the Hispanic community. It is highly unlikely that the lawsuit will succeed. Disclaimer: I support the intent of the lawsuit.

[Sigh]

Every lawyer I've talked to after reading the DoJ filings has laughed. The filings say, in almost so many words: "We have decided not to enforce the law, and if you enforce it, it will conflict with our decision not to enforce the law." See, e.g., P. 2 "The federal government has prioritized enforcement against dangerous aliens who pose a threat to national security and public safety, but Arizona’s indiscriminate approach will stand in the way of the federal government’s focused efforts to get the most dangerous aliens off the streets."

Even worse, DoJ conflates the different standards for laws regulating LEGAL and ILLEGAL aliens. All the cases they cite are for legal aliens, even though the Supreme Court, through several decisions by Justice Brennan, laid out that, to pre-empt state laws on illegal immigration, Congress must speak "clearly and manifestly" that it wants to pre-empt. No such statements were offered; only lots of cases in other areas. Applying the proper De Canas v. Bica standard would uphold Arizona's law.

[SpideyTerry]

So, Obama is challenging a popular law during an election year in which his party is clearly suffering?

Oh, well, good thing Democrats didn't rack up massive debt or pass deeply unpopular healthcare overhaul, or they'd really be in trouble in November. *cough*

[Ertdfg]

Yes, stop that discriminatory law, that discriminates against people... look at their complaint PDF... gotta be here, go to page... um... hey, there's nothing in here about discrimination anywhere at all?

Wasn't that the big problem, and the reasoning of the various organizations rallied against it; but it isn't even mentioned in the complaint?

It's like nobody could find any actual proof that the law is in any way discriminatory...

"Mandatory state alien inspection schemes and attendant federal verification 4 requirements will impermissibly impair and burden the federal resources and activities of 5 DHS."

They admit that doing their job and applying the existing Federal law as written is too much of a burden for them?

Is it illegal to require a government agency to do the job they're legally mandated to do even if it's hard? Sadly nowadays it might be.

[Xavier Xoxotl]

Well, it's nice to see that the current administration has come out and pretty much admitted that they would rather side against their own citizens then not.

[Alwaysfiredup]

Should this be filed with SCOTUS under original jurisdiction? And since the feds are basing their argument exclusively on pre-emption and not constitutionality, my guess is they know they have a weak case and will lose.

[Zeke_ulrey]

I'd hazard a guess that -- rightfully -- Arizona is about to get her spanking...

I'm good with that.