The Supreme Court of the United States initiated review of the controversial Arizona immigration law (SB 1070) on Monday. Arizona Governor Janice Brewer lost this case in Federal Court last October. However, with the help of Paul Clement, one of DC’s most influential attorneys, and with the help of the extensive legal support funded by the taxpayers of Arizona, she managed to appeal her case to the U.S. Supreme Court.
This case is not a test of the legality of racial profiling in the state of Arizona but rather a test of Arizona’s “preemptive right" to pass a law that trumps Federal immigration laws. As Stephen Wermiel, at American University Washington College of Law, pointed out:
“The political issue in Arizona’s appeal is how much leeway states have to regulate immigration in light of the comprehensive system of federal immigration law. The legal issue is one that has repeatedly drawn the Supreme Court’s attention in an another immigration case from Arizona, and many other contexts, in the last few years – preemption.
The concept of preemption is fairly simple to state, but much more difficult to apply. Federal law takes precedence over state law. This principle is stated in Article VI, paragraph 2 of the Constitution, commonly referred to as the Supremacy Clause, which provides that the ‘Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof . . . shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding’ .”
The preemptive concerns are based on four provisions in SB 1070. As outlined by Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUSBlog, these provisions are:
“ ** A requirement that police in making any stop or arrest to try to determine the individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality. If arrested, the individual cannot be released until his legal status is verified by the federal government. That is the law’s Section 2(B).
** A provision making it a crime under state law for an individual to intentionally fail to obtain and carry legal immigrant papers with him while in Arizona (Section 3).
** A provision making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in AZ (Section 5[C]).
** And, a provision that allows police to arrest without a warrant any person for whom the officer has “probable cause to believe” that the individual has committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported (Section 6).”
Many progressives following this case are not optimistic about the outcome. The fact that SCOTUS even considered this case for review was not a good sign. The U.S. Supreme Court has, in the past, tended to let lower court decisions stand on immigration issues like SB 1070.
Supreme Court Justice Elana Kagan has recused herself in this case. But, even with her presence, there would not be enough support to counter the Tea Party Five (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy) on this case.
Furthermore, Brewer and the Tea Party have brought in the right wing big-guns to support their case. A look at the list of amicus briefs filed on behalf of Arizona illustrates this point. Names like Edwin Meese, the American Civil Rights Union, the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and several other conservative organizations show up on this list – a virtual Who’s Who in the big-money right wing support groups.
No one will be present in these court proceedings to represent “the people" in this state. Missing will be the faces of those who are directly affected by the harsh immigration laws that are being enforced in Arizona, made even harsher by the discriminatory rules put in place by SB 1070.
SCOTUS needs to see people like Miguel; whose parents where deported as a result of our current immigration policies:
In addition, SCOTUS needs to see examples of the real people who are supporting SB 1070 on the ground in Arizona:
Then SCOTUS needs to ask itself whether Arizona's SB 1070 law rightfully preempts the Federal immigration laws that are (or should be) designed to protect the “human rights” of everyone in this country.
_________________________________________
Videos produced by Dennis Gilman, Phoenix
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Cenk Uygur
Oryoki Bowl
Robert Greenwald
Frank Michels
Kent Pitman
markinjapan
Salon.com
Comments
Governments are always eager to assume duties that they should not, if they perceive that such assumptions will expand and secure their power. Governments are less eager to perform duties that they believe won't expand or secure their power.
It would be wonderful if voters reminded government of what it should be doing well and of what it should not be doing at all.
Today's right wing addendum would be: Except all you black, brown, red and yellow folk -- get the fuck out, we took this place and we're not giving it back.
It amazes me how grown men and women can still act like some goddamn spoiled brats who've been allowed to stay up too late and are now also cranky.
They really need a time out.
--r--
Chris,
If you can take fanciful flight with the clear meaning of "invasion" in art 4 sec 4, as opposed to the clear meaning of immigration in art 1 sec 8, then there's no sense in stopping there. The guarantee of a Republican form of government must mean all states have to be under GOP control.
That's not a valid argument, however, the minute the Mexican army crosses the border, it's game on for 4&4.
It would be wonderful if voters reminded government of what it should be doing well and of what it should not be doing at all."
It took me a moment to realized that you weren't referring to the Arizona legislature. And, the Arizona voters have started doing that by not reelecting the legislator responsible for the bill.
is it that republican governors should be denied legal counsel to appeal their cases, if they lose in lower court?
on what basis do you arbitrarily classify every republican appointed jurist as a "tea party member"?
i think we can breathe a sigh of relief that you're not actually in charge of anyone, or anything, since you seem about 500 miles removed from objectivity.
for the record, i happen to agree with the notion that federal law should pre-empt competing state laws. we cannot have 50 different standards for immigration, citizenship, work visas, etc.
that said, how to redress the obvious inequity of federal failure to enfore immigration law - both in the bush and the obama eras - with the huge economic and criminal toll being exacted on border states?
or would you be happier to just allow the disparate impacts to continue, ensuring that border states become even more disaffected from washington, and vote republican, tea party, or even more to the right?
I look Hispanic, I'm not; but you can not presume my genealogy by appearance, for simply walking down the street. No one has the right to question my citizenship or nationality because I happen to be there.
It's racial profiling, full-stop. When they start profiling right wingers, and putting them on watch lists, it'll be easier to understand.