Supreme Court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law

Arizona immigration ruling brings simultaneous joy and disappointment · The Supreme Court said Monday that the federal government has the sole power to enforce the laws against illegals.

New York City, NY (prHWY.com) June 27, 2012 - The US Supreme Court said June 25 that the federal government has the sole power to enforce the laws against illegal immigration, striking down three key provisions of Arizona's first-in-the nation crackdown on undocumented residents, newsreports said.

In an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the country's highest court by an 8-0 vote upheld the Arizona law's most controversial aspect, requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they stop for any reason, Reuters reported.


But in a split verdict, the justices also ruled that the three other provisions of Arizona's 2010 law that were challenged in court by the Obama administration went too far. The votes on those provisions were either 5-3 or 6-2, with the more conservative justices in dissent.
These three provisions required immigrants to carry immigration papers at all times, banned illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places, and allowed police arrest of immigrants without warrants if officers believed they committed crimes that would make them deportable.


The decision may be a partial, symbolic victory for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, but it is a much bigger win for President Obama. His administration had sued to block the Arizona law from taking effect, and it prevailed on three of the four provisions under dispute.
The majority that struck down three challenged parts of the Arizona law also included Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as the more liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, the nation's first Hispanic justice.

"I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration attorneys reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system - it's part of the problem," Obama said in a statement quoted in newsreports.

In upholding the police checks, Justice Anthony Kennedy said their mandatory nature did not interfere with the federal immigration scheme, and found unpersuasive the Obama administration argument that federal law preempted this part of the law at this stage, the Los Angeles Times reported.

He said it was improper to block that provision before state courts had an opportunity to review it, and without some showing that its enforcement conflicted with federal immigration law.
Kennedy also left open the possibility for constitutional or other challenges to the law once it goes into effect.
Opponents of the Arizona law also have sued on other grounds that it was unconstitutional and could lead to ethnic and racial profiling of the fast-growing Hispanic population, which represents 16 percent of all Americans.
The June 25th ruling in Arizona vs. United States keeps three of those provisions on hold, but allows the state to begin enforcing the provision that says the police who lawfully stop persons should check their immigration status if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.

###

Tag Words: arizona immigration law

Categories: Law

Link To This Press Release:

URL HTML Code