Supreme Court Stikes Down (most of) Arizona Immigration Law

Remove all ads!

And I would fully expect that this ruling would also affect other states with similar laws. The reason why this one specifically concerned Arizona was because they were the first state to pass the legislation, although others followed suit thereafter.

Here's the article.

And here's a PDF of the ruling, complete with dissenting opinion.

 

I think the bigger news is that part of the law was upheld. Law enforcement can ask for proof of residency or legal immigrant status and turn over potential illegal immigrants to the federal authorities -- that's huge.

 

But even that wasn't fully upheld. The SC ruled that it was NOT OK for police to arrest someone who they suspected of being an illegal if they failed to produce valid ID, unless they had already committed an arrestable offense. This is contained on the PDF on pages 23-28.

They give two examples. In the first example, if the person was stopped by police for jaywalking and could not produce an ID, it would not be reasonable for police to ascertain his immigration status as that would greatly add to the detention of the suspect. On the other hand, if the person was stopped by police for driving while under the influence of alcohol, he would be detained regardless. And in that case, it would be perfectly acceptable to check his immigration status as the police would be making an actual arrest.

Basically it boils down to whether the person being stopped by police is suspected of committing an arrestable offense. and to that end, whether making an immigration inquiry would prolong the detention of that person. If he's being arrested anyway, checking immigration won't prolong the detention. If it's not an arrestable offense, then checking with immigration will certainly prolong the detention and is not allowed.

The other thing that the SC struck down was the part that allowed officers to make an arrest, without a warrant, anyone who failed to produce an ID. Again, the only way that can happen is if they were committing some other arrestable offense. But in this case, the Arizona law is largely superfluous, as anyone who is being arrested and therefore detained, MUST produce a valid ID before they would be released anyway.

So, IMO, it's not huge.

 

It wasn't preempted because the SC said it needs to be better defined by lower courts what that section means and how it will be applied. They said there were two means of interpreting that section, one of which would be OK, one of which would not be OK. Did I read the same opinion as you?

Page 26 is interpretation 1 which isn't OK:

And that's when they said they need clarification from the state courts as to how it would be applied. They also say that the law isn't clear on a couple of other things: whether or not the check has to be performed while the person is still in custody (which could potentially result in prolonged detention), or after the release of that person. Moreover, it isn't specific enough to say whether or not the check should take place every time someone is arrested, or only a subset therein. But they make clear how they expect the lower courts to interpret this part of the law when they say:

But the SC threw the provisions to 2(B) back to the state courts to decide - it just didn't preempt it outright because of lack of specificity in the law to begin with, and the need to see how it would be interpreted and applied once it goes into effect:

Now, perhaps you interpret that part differently than me, but I read it as, it's OK for now, but since we haven't see how it will work in practice, it would be nice to see how the state courts are going to interpret and apply this law, and it's possible that after it goes into effect, it may need to be looked at again. So they aren't going to preempt that part of the law on the basis that it might be applied inappropriately. That is not to say that it could not be preempted at a later time if it in fact is not used properly.

 

Well, I think the "according to Alito and Scalia" is pretty important, seeing as how they were not among the 5 justices in the majority opinion. (Considering Kagan had recused herself from the case, I was actually pretty surprised that they were able to come to a decision. I had expected a 4-4 split, but Roberts was with the majority.)

 

Someone was telling me that Obama has instructed the department of immigration to stop taking calls from the Arizona law enforcement even if they are calling about a person suspected of a felony.

 

Eh, people were telling me 3 years ago Obama was planning to have gun owners deported to camps... Yes, I mean it. Is there a reason you'd find that someone trustworthy, LKD?