Judge orders injunction against Arizona immigration law

[nathan]

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-arizona-im ... 6702.story

Reporting from Phoenix — A federal judge has halted the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law, which had been scheduled to take effect at midnight.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

HAHA!

[ggeezz]

http://www.latimes.com/la-na-arizona-immigration-20100729,0,3606702.story

Reporting from Phoenix — A federal judge has halted the most controversial elements of Arizona's new immigration law, which had been scheduled to take effect at midnight.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton on Wednesday halted implementation of the parts of the law that require police to determine the status of people they stop and think are in the country illegally. She also forbade the state from charging anyone for a new crime of failing to possess immigration documents.

Bolton's ruling found that the Obama administration was likely to prevail at trial in proving the two provisions, and two other ones in the sweeping law, were an unconstitutional attempt by Arizona to regulate immigration. Arizona is expected to immediately appeal the decision to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.

HAHA!

HAHA because you don't like the law or because you think it's unconstitutional?

[nathan]

HA HA!

[nathan]

Err, I mean: I don't like the law, and I don't think its constitutional. In my mind immigration is a pretty cut-and-dry federal purview. But we've sorta talked about this already.

[Kafir]

Text of the ruling here.

I only skimmed a bit; I haven't thought enough about federal preemption to have an informed general opinion. I thought this bit was interesting, though:

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” ... Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is
unlawfully present in the country.”

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. ...

[ggeezz]

Text of the ruling here.

I only skimmed a bit; I haven't thought enough about federal preemption to have an informed general opinion. I thought this bit was interesting, though:

The Court first addresses the second sentence of Section 2(B): “Any person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Arizona advances that the proper interpretation of this sentence is “that only where a reasonable suspicion exists that a person arrested is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States must the person’s immigration status be determined before the person is released.” ... Arizona goes on to state, “[T]he Arizona Legislature could not have intended to compel Arizona’s law enforcement officers to determine and verify the immigration status of every single person arrested – even for United States citizens and when there is absolutely no reason to believe the person is
unlawfully present in the country.”

The Court cannot interpret this provision as Arizona suggests. ...

That is interesting. Most everything I heard in the news used Arizona's interpretation, but one has to wonder why they didn't write something less ambiguous if that's what they meant.

[ggeezz]

Err, I mean: I don't like the law, and I don't think its constitutional. In my mind immigration is a pretty cut-and-dry federal purview. But we've sorta talked about this already.

I'm not sure where we ended up in that discussion.

The problem with calling the law unconstitutional because immigration is under federal authority is that the law doesn't provide (AFAIK) for any punishments for illegal immigration. They would be handed over to federal authorities. That's beside the point that the constitution does forbid the states to do things the federal government does. The purpose of article 1 section 10 is to enumerate those prohibitions.

But I digress. Saying this law is unconstitutional for that reason is like saying local law enforcement is required to look the other way when they see counterfeiting.