As you can probably guess, we were pleased that Judge Susan Bolton stopped at least part of the problematic Arizona immigration law, SB 1070, from going into effect. SALDEF filed an amicus brief in the case brought by a coalition of civil rights organizations urging that the law be stopped from going into effect. The judge stopped the following provisions from going into effect: Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070: requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person Section 3 of S.B. 1070: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070: creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work Section 6 of S.B. 1070: authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States Judge Bolton actually issued the opinion in connection with the case brought by the United States Government in a suit against the state of Arizona. The core of her reasoning was agreeing with the Department of Justice (and the civil rights groups) that federal trumps state law (the idea of federal preemption). On the bright side, Judge Bolton recognized some of the civil rights and profiling challenges we suggested would come up in the law. For example, she said: “All arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police into the lives of legally present aliens (and even U.S. citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this requirement.” On the down side, while these portions of the law were stopped from going into effect, the feelings of fear and tolerance for possible discrimination still exist. Of course, this isn’t the end of the road for the case. It will be heard on appeal by the Ninth Circuit and then the Supreme Court. But the federal preemption argument will likely hold up and the law will continue to be properly deemed unconstitutional. Read the opinion here.
