Supreme Court To Review Arizona's Immigration Law

The Supreme Court has decided to hear Arizona's appeal of court decisions holding its immigration law, SB 1070, unconstitutional.

The issue the Court will decide is one of pre-emption, whether federal immigration laws preclude Arizona from enacting the four controversial provisions ruled unconstitutional by the district and appeals court. The 9th Circuit ruling is here. Arizona's Petition for Certiorari is here. You can access the pleadings here. [More...]

The four parts of the law that were invalidated are those:

  • making it a state crime to be in the country illegally and failing to register with the federal government;
  • making it illegal to seek work or to be working when not authorized;
  • requiring state and local officers to try to determine the status of someone arrested, stopped or detained if they believe the individual might be in the country unlawfully;
  • and allowing the warrantless arrest of anyone who they have probable cause to believe might have violated laws that would make them deportable under federal law.

Justice Kagan has recused herself. Five justices will have to vote to support the law for its major provisions to survive.

The ruling will likely come this summer, before the presidential election in 2012. If the 9th Circuit decision is reversed by conservative justices, it will be another reminder of why we shouldn't sit out the Presidential election. Can you imagine giving someone like Newt Gingrich the power to appoint Supreme Court justices for life?

< Jerry Sandusky Prelim: Media Will Live Tweet From Court | Big Day for Cartel Busters >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I don't see how even (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by fiver on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 09:09:27 PM EST
    a conservative court could find the law constitutional.  it clearly is a federal, not state, issue.  

    We don't need to imagine (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Dec 12, 2011 at 08:19:43 PM EST
    We already have 4 (and most days 5 examples). That's about 5 too many already.

    Yes, no need... (1.00 / 1) (#3)
    by kdog on Tue Dec 13, 2011 at 08:10:26 AM EST
    I've already seen Obama's appointments decide that search warrants are optional.  Brand R appointments cease to be so scary when Brand D appointments roll like that.