Aa
High court strikes down key parts of Arizona immigration law
The Supreme Court upheld one part of the Arizona immigration law but struck down other sections.
The Supreme Court has handed down a ruling on Arizona's strict immigration law. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.
Text of the decision (PDF)
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
•One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
•One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
•And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
The decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”
Yuri Gripas / Reuters
Members of the media gather June 25 for a stakeout in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.
In the oral argument before the high court on April 25 Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.
Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”
Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.
Justice Elena Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.
The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law?lite
The Supreme Court has handed down a ruling on Arizona's strict immigration law. NBC's Pete Williams reports.
The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.
Text of the decision (PDF)
The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
•One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
•One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
•And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.
The decision was a partial victory for President Obama who had criticized the Arizona law, saying it “threatened to undermine basic notions of fairness that we cherish as Americans.”
Yuri Gripas / Reuters
Members of the media gather June 25 for a stakeout in front of U.S. Supreme Court in Washington.
The Justice Department had moved quickly in 2010 to block enforcement of the law. The administration had argued that the Constitution vests exclusive authority over immigration matters with the federal government, not the states, and that where the federal government has pre-empted state action, no state can intrude on that federal turf.
In the oral argument before the high court on April 25 Solicitor General Donald Verrilli said Arizona did not have the power to exclude or remove a person who is in the state illegally.
Although some critics of the law have contended that it would inevitably lead to targeting of Latinos simply because of appearance, speaking Spanish, or having a Spanish accent, Verrilli told the justices on April 25 “We're not making any allegation about racial or ethnic profiling in the case.”
Since enforcement of the law had been blocked by a federal judge soon after its enactment, the Obama administration did not present a record to the Supreme Court of the law leading to incidents of ethnic profiling of Latinos in the state.
Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito concurred in part and dissented in part.
Justice Elena Kagan, who served as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, had recused herself from the Arizona case.
The high court’s decision comes just days after Obama announced a new administration policy of not deporting illegal immigrants under age 30 who came to the United States, or were brought to the United States before reaching age 16, who are in school, or have graduated from high school, gotten a general education certificate, or are military veterans. The illegal immigrants covered by the new administration policy will be permitted to apply for authorization to work legally in the United States.
http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law?lite
Both sides are claiming victory. Both Dems and Republicans. How is that for spin?
There were 4 provisions of this law. 3 were struck down. However the one provision that was upheld is the "show your papers please law". Police do have the right to ask for papers from anyone they think may be an illegal. That would apply to drivers, sitting on the sidewalk, or even having to show up on a complaint of their grass is too high or even if they had to dial 911 or just about anything else.
The actual ruling is online for anyone wanting to decipher exactly what it says. My version is the way I understand it.
The actual ruling is online for anyone wanting to decipher exactly what it says. My version is the way I understand it.
Looks like I was wrong on this one...
States are allowed to create immigration laws, AS LONG AS they don't undermine or interfere with Federal Laws.
I guess the judges saw the AZ proposition as stepping on the federal gov't toes, as far as immigration goes.
States are allowed to create immigration laws, AS LONG AS they don't undermine or interfere with Federal Laws.
I guess the judges saw the AZ proposition as stepping on the federal gov't toes, as far as immigration goes.
So initially, the federal gov't said it was the responsibility of each individual state to create and uphold immigration law(s). Now, the federal gov't has stepped in and struck down a states attempt to create & uphold some immigration law(s).
Does that mean that the federal gov't is now the responsible party, in reference to immigration law, as they put the kybosh on AZ? Or is it still state responsibility?
It appears, from the above article and the stance the supreme court took, that the federal gov't DOES want to be involved.
Does that mean that the federal gov't is now the responsible party, in reference to immigration law, as they put the kybosh on AZ? Or is it still state responsibility?
It appears, from the above article and the stance the supreme court took, that the federal gov't DOES want to be involved.
I guess I am always going to have a problem with the word, "illegal". Part of me really want's to be sympathetic for those brought here, not of their own free will.... I really do. The kids can stay, but the parents leave? Is that the deal?
The stipulations in the above statement..... I don't know. Sounds like we are setting mom and dad up with a free place to stay the next time they cross the border or over stay their work visas.
Weak example of "reform" if you ask me.....
The stipulations in the above statement..... I don't know. Sounds like we are setting mom and dad up with a free place to stay the next time they cross the border or over stay their work visas.
Weak example of "reform" if you ask me.....
Our country is being destroyed from within.
You must join this user group in order to participate in this discussion.
You are reading content posted in the Current Events . . . Group
A list of national and international resources and hotlines to help connect you to needed health and medical services.
Herpes sores blister, then burst, scab and heal.
Herpes spreads by oral, vaginal and anal sex.
STIs are the most common cause of genital sores.
Condoms are the most effective way to prevent HIV and STDs.
PrEP is used by people with high risk to prevent HIV infection.
