The Supreme Court today accepted cert in the challenge to Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law. In a loss to the Administration, Associate Justice Kagan recused herself from the case.
I have previously written and discussed that I viewed this case as a close one with some solid arguments being made on both sides. While the existing precedent supports the Administration, there is ample authority that would support the Court in reversing the lower court and ruling for Arizona on the issue of preemption. The most interesting constitutional question in the case is the implied preemption claim made by the Administration — arguing that, even if the state passes a law that enforces federal rules, it runs counter to federal authority.
With a hearing around April, the Court could rule by July — well in advance of the presidential election. I have expressed confusion of the strategy of the Administration in pushing this issue. I am not sure which is worse for Obama: to lose this case or to win this case. Polls show Americans heavily opposed to illegal immigration and generally supportive of these state efforts.
Along the vein, the Administration picked the world’s worse time to propose an unmanned entry point around the Mexican border. Under the proposal, people could cross by swiping a card and they could communicate with agents 100 miles away. The idea is not as ridiculous as it has been portrayed, but who on Earth would pick this time to make such a proposal? Much like the Christmas tree tax, there does not appear to be anyone working at the switch to time these proposals.
The Kagan recusal is likely to add to the demands that she agree to recuse herself from the health care case, as she had other issues that went through her office as Solicitor General. Kagan previously recused herself from the last immigration decision involving Arizona.
The Administration could have delayed these cases and worked to scuttle review. Instead, it has been doubling down on immigration and filing challenges to state laws when it could have allowed others to advance these claims (while reserving the right to intervene as an amicus as has been the practice in the past). It has now largely engineered both a health care ruling and immigration ruling to come down before the election. I fail to see the wisdom in that strategy but the White House appears to believe that this is a winning strategy to have a ruling on the two most divisive issues in the country.
Source: CBS
FLOG THE BLOG: Have you voted yet for the top legal opinion blog? WE NEED YOUR VOTE! You can vote at HERE by clicking on the “opinion” category. Voting ends December 31, 2011.
I do not trust someone like Sheriff Joe to ‘enforce’ this law in any kind of legal way. The 44 million dollars we have paid so far to defend him in court proves he is untrustworthy.
And you do know that most of the original law passed in Arizona was stuck down by the State Supreme Court, leaving this remnant that agrees with Federal Law.
http://azgovernor.gov/documents/BorderSecurity/SB1070MythsandFacts.pdf
MYTH: S.B. 1070 will make racial profiling the law of the land in Arizona and there is the possibility of detaining or arresting someone merely on the basis of physical appearance.
FACT: The opposite is true. S.B. 1070 expressly prohibits racial profiling. Per the express language of the law, police “may not consider race, color or national origin in implementing the requirements of this subsection except to the extent permitted by the United States or Arizona Constitution.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(B). In addition, S.B. 1070 provides that these provisions of the law “shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” A.R.S. § 11-1051(L).
MYTH: S.B. 1070 is unconstitutional because it intrudes on the federal government’s power to enforce immigration laws. Only the federal government has the authority to enforce federal immigration laws.
FACT: It is settled case law that states and local police may enforce criminal
provisions of federal immigration law. See Gonzales v. City of Peoria (AZ), 722 F.2d 468 (9th Cir. 1983). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in Gonzales v. City of Peoria that “nothing in federal law precluded…police from enforcing the criminal provisions of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.” It is well established that state and local police possess the inherent authority to arrest aliens who have violated the criminal provisions of federal immigration law. It is also important to note that S.B. 1070 expressly provides that a person’s immigration status may only be determined by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), U.S. Customs and Border Protection, or a law enforcement officer authorized by the federal government to verify immigration status. A.R.S. § 11-1051(E
For years and years, Arizona and other states have asked/begged the Feds to do more to enforce the borders.
Napolitano has been more interested in enforcing the border between states with her spy cams than in enforcing the border with Mexico (or Canada).
Then when Arizona moves on her own, supported by both liberals and conservatives within the state, ignorant hackneyed, rote, partisan self-claimed progressives from outside the state just call it racist in a typical know-nothing knee jerk fashion:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/28/immigration.reform.debate/index.html
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Arizona, said her constituents were “sick and tired” of the federal government failing to protect the border. The current situation is “completely unacceptable,” she said.
Giffords defended the Arizona law. She acknowledged the concerns about the bill’s constitutionality but said it is a “clear calling that the federal government needs to do a better job” securing the border.
Puzzling,
inherent in your statement that the Arizona law mirrors the federal one is that it is unnecessary. It is an attempt to preempt federal law. It has to be if it is rewriting the federal law. The racist issue comes in on their attempts to enforce the law that is allegedly unconstitutional and people like Sheriff Joe are throwing a dragnet for the brown people. How is that law working in Alabama and who are they “catching”?
Rafflaw,
Arizona has crafted a law that deliberately mirrors the federal one. The state is not trying to remake federal immigration policy.
You allege that the Arizona’s law is “racist” in origin. If it’s the same as the federal law, is that law also racist? Is the federal law itself unconstitutional if so?
Or is it only racist when a state implements immigration laws identical to what the federal government has on the books?
” Associate Justice Kagan recused herself from the case.”
It seems as if she is trying to set some sort of record here,are is it just me feeling this way?
puzzling,
I thought that was what the lawsuit was all about. Challenging the consitutionality of the state immigration laws is what is in front of the Supreme Court.
It really irks me that Obama is fighting these somewhat insignificant battles in court while ignoring the real source of the conflict.
Maybe the only way to get significant change is to Get Money Out Of Politics.
Am hoping Sheriff Joe is on the hot seat for his negligence of over 400 sex crimes:
http://centerforinvestigativereporting.org/node/4900
“The only real ‘cure’ for illegal immigration is ‘Fair Trade’.”
And I agree with this and the rest of your post.
I’ve regretted that Paul Krugman seems to lean to free trade more than fair trade, or so it seems, (but leans more to fair trade than he did 5, 10, 20 years ago,) and seems to strongly espouse fair trade policies when it comes to C02, but not for other issues.
The only real ‘cure’ for illegal immigration is ‘Fair Trade’.
All the Mexicans I know would stay and work in Mexico if they could get a living wage at the slave labor factories lining our border from Texas to California.
Pollution from factories in Mexico is now showing up on the beaches in San Diego. We only hurt ourselves with these terrible trade deals.
When people cannot have a simple life and are forced to work in inhumane and toxic environments- so toxic they cannot even grow their own food to help support their families- they are going to try and escape for their lives. It’s our own damn fault that migrants come here.
It is exploitation written into our trade deals that is causing the problems. Obama and Hillary both promised to re-negotiate these deals to “Fair Trade” and include living wages and environmental protections. So, what did we get instead while both are in power? Three more ‘Free Trade” deals that only benefit Multinational corporations.
They both betrayed us. Multinational corporations in globalization only increase inequality all over the world. The Neo Liberal economic model has failed and we need to change all our trade policies to reflect that reality.
” I cannot wait for the day we say ‘adios’ to Sheriff Arpaio. ”
We can buy each other a beer the day that happens. Good riddance to that fascist and as quickly as possible.
shano,
“While anons post may have been valid in the past, the numbers are changing as well as the demographics.
The illegal immigration migrant numbers are in rapid decline because of the recession. ”
I am hopeful, as you are not, that the recession will be over one day.
“Add to the fact that Smithfield, Tyson, Cargil, etc. were actively advertising for workers to come to the US for jobs. I saw these advertising flyers all over Obregon and Hermosilla in Sonora, Mexico.”
And now we see what forces really are for open borders, and hint hint hint, it’s the 1%ers, not “we the people.”
“[strike]Arizona[/strike] Smithfield, Tyson, Cargil has problems with [strike]getting[/strike] paying modern wages to ag workers, as does Georgia and Alabama. ”
And now we see what forces really are for open borders, and hint hint hint, it’s the 1%ers, not “we the people.”
While anons post may have been valid in the past, the numbers are changing as well as the demographics.
The illegal immigration migrant numbers are in rapid decline because of the recession. Falling in Arizona by the thousands.
And the birthrate in Mexico is falling rapidly, too. Most of the problems in the past decades with illegal immigration on the Southern border were caused by NAFTA, CAFTA, et al.
When we put a million farmers out of work in Mexico with US government subsidized corn- in the first year NAFTA was enacted- what the hell did we expect those people to do? Add to the fact that Smithfield, Tyson, Cargil, etc. were actively advertising for workers to come to the US for jobs. I saw these advertising flyers all over Obregon and Hermosilla in Sonora, Mexico.
Now we see that the US needs a certain and steady amount of these workers in the agriculture sector and the pool is drying up. Arizona has problems with getting ag workers, as does Georgia and Alabama. The workers left will go to states that do not punish them for trying to stay alive.
I am hoping this is the start of real immigration reform. And like rcampbell, am sad to see Justice Kagan recuse. We pushed Pearce out of office, the architect of this legislation, I cannot wait for the day we say ‘adios’ to Sheriff Arpaio. Wish we could kick ALEC out of Az. politics, too.
I live in Arizona. Brewer and this outrageous, patently racist and un-Constitutional law are embarassments to the state. Both should be trashed. I’m sorry to see Justice Kagan recused herself.
Rafflaw,
Anon lays out compelling interests by Arizona and other states in the enforcement of immigration law.
Regardless of whether or not this administration has deported more than the prior administration, there are likely 10 – 12 million illegals in the United States today. That’s certainly not an indication of successful enforcement.
If federal immigration laws are an unfounded “racist response” by a xenophobic electorate, why are we not having a debate about the underlying constitutionality of such laws instead?
I disagree that the administration should have delayed the case for political reasons. So much of the frustration in this country right now surrounding politics is due to the fact that politicians make decisions on the basis of what is best for their political careers, instead of solving problems. I could care less about any politicians job security. Do what you were elected to do, regardless of when the next election is.
Rafflaw,
You might feel differently if you were actually a thinking, living liberal interested in universal health care — Paul Krugman is against open borders because they are incompatible with a strong social safety net.
You might feel differently if you lived in this shithole and regularly, weekly, read and witnessed:
+ Traffic Accidents with poorly maintained vans and trucks filled with illegal aliens spilling out onto the freeway, injured.
+ more than a hundred dead men, women and children in the deserts and backyards every year
+ the pollution and killing of the San Pedro river and other rivers that illegals walk up to find their way north
+ the neighborhood drophouses filled with 20, 30, 50, 100, or more people housed in poor conditions with no water, no sanitation, and no air conditioning
+ local gun shops found to be used by Fast & Furious programs to sell guns that go to Mexico
+ the state forced to close level one trauma centers due to lack of funding
+ the state forced to close state parks due to lack of funding
+ the cities forced to close city pools due to lack of funding
Neighbors unable to find living wages or create jobs due to competition from illegals in the fast food, land scaping, construction and many other businesses.
But since you’re a fat cat lawyer with a state enforced monopoly on who can practice law it’s easy for you to sit back and call other people having to deal with these real world problems racist.
Mainly it makes you a naive, judgmental, ignorant jackass.
And not nearly as liberal as you would like to believe.
Puzzling,
These state immigration laws are a farce. The Feds have deported thousands more than the previous administration and have put more people on the border than ever before. They are simply a racist response to people who look foreign. Ask Alabama how their Arizona like law is doing!
So we have constitutional federal immigration laws and the federal government refuses to enforce them sufficiently to satisfy state interests. What recourse is left if Arizona loses?
What if the federal government claimed supremacy for kidnapping laws and then refused enforce them?
I agree with you Bette.
Secondly, it is a mistake for Kagan to recuse herself. Scalia and Thomas and Alito would never recuse themselves for any matter as we have already seen. I do not have confidence that this Court will keep politics out of anything. Kagan should recuse herself when the three Federalists recuse themselves.
My only statement: As long as that law stands, my money and I are going to stay away from AZ.