Washington Post: The Supreme Court on Wednesday seemed receptive to the argument that Arizona’s tough plan to have state and local law enforcement play a much more active role in identifying illegal immigrants was a valid exercise of its power to protect its borders.
Hearing final oral arguments in the case, justices seemed skeptical of the Obama administration’s claim that a requirement that police check the immigration status of those arrested or detained was an impermissible intrusion on Congress’s power to set immigration policy and the executive branch’s ability to implement it.
“What could possibly be wrong,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., with Arizona officers simply checking the status of someone detained and giving the information to the federal government.
If the federal authorities do not wish to invoke deportation proceedings against the person, Roberts said, they don’t have to.
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, sharply questioning Verrilli about whether a state has the ability to “defend its borders.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Verrilli that the government’s argument that “systematic enforcement” might violate federal law was “not selling.”
Verrilli said the structural problem with Arizona’s far-reaching law is that its goal of “attrition through enforcement” would simply move the problem of illegal immigration from one state to its neighbor. “That’s something that Arizona cannot do,” he said.
The justices seemed to have more concerns with other portions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which has led to similar attempted crackdowns in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana.
That could lead to the court to allow some parts of the Arizona law to go into effect, but restrict others.
Roberts told Paul D. Clement, the former Bush administration solicitor general who is representing Arizona, that the state seemed to have authorized “significantly greater sanctions” than the federal immigration law allows by imposing criminal penalties on immigrants who seek work.
Clement acknowledged the federal government places the burden on employers with illegal workers but said that did not mean states could not impose sanctions on the employees themselves.
Civil rights, religious and immigrant groups have opposed Arizona’s law because they say it will lead to racial profiling or the harassment of legal citizens based on skin color or accent.
But Roberts made clear — even before Verrilli could begin his argument — that the federal government was not relying on such arguments in the current case. Although Verrilli mentioned the potential for harassment, he agreed the argument was based on the belief that federal law and the federal government’s prominence in immigration matters preclude Arizona’s law.
The Supreme Court is examining four parts of the law that have never gone into effect because of legal challenges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit enjoined provisions of the law that:
● Require state and local law enforcement to verify the citizenship status of anyone stopped, detained or arrested when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States unlawfully.
● Authorize law enforcement officials to make an arrest without a warrant when an officer has “probable cause to believe . . . [t]he person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”
● Make it a state crime to be in the United States unlawfully and require non-citizens to carry documents to prove they are legally in the country.
● Make it a state crime for a person who is not lawfully in the country to work or seek work. Federal law puts the burden on employers to verify the legality of those seeking work.
Immigration is one of the nation’s thorniest political issues and is playing an important role in the presidential contest.
Obama and his administration have been accused of not properly securing the nation’s borders and criticized for not delivering comprehensive immigration reform. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tough stance against illegal immigration has angered some interest groups and is said to have cost him among increasingly influential Latino voters.
The case is Arizona v. United States. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because of her involvement in the case as Obama’s solicitor general.
Hearing final oral arguments in the case, justices seemed skeptical of the Obama administration’s claim that a requirement that police check the immigration status of those arrested or detained was an impermissible intrusion on Congress’s power to set immigration policy and the executive branch’s ability to implement it.
“What could possibly be wrong,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. asked Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr., with Arizona officers simply checking the status of someone detained and giving the information to the federal government.
If the federal authorities do not wish to invoke deportation proceedings against the person, Roberts said, they don’t have to.
Justice Antonin Scalia went further, sharply questioning Verrilli about whether a state has the ability to “defend its borders.”
Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Verrilli that the government’s argument that “systematic enforcement” might violate federal law was “not selling.”
Verrilli said the structural problem with Arizona’s far-reaching law is that its goal of “attrition through enforcement” would simply move the problem of illegal immigration from one state to its neighbor. “That’s something that Arizona cannot do,” he said.
The justices seemed to have more concerns with other portions of Arizona’s S.B. 1070, which has led to similar attempted crackdowns in Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Utah and Indiana.
That could lead to the court to allow some parts of the Arizona law to go into effect, but restrict others.
Roberts told Paul D. Clement, the former Bush administration solicitor general who is representing Arizona, that the state seemed to have authorized “significantly greater sanctions” than the federal immigration law allows by imposing criminal penalties on immigrants who seek work.
Clement acknowledged the federal government places the burden on employers with illegal workers but said that did not mean states could not impose sanctions on the employees themselves.
Civil rights, religious and immigrant groups have opposed Arizona’s law because they say it will lead to racial profiling or the harassment of legal citizens based on skin color or accent.
But Roberts made clear — even before Verrilli could begin his argument — that the federal government was not relying on such arguments in the current case. Although Verrilli mentioned the potential for harassment, he agreed the argument was based on the belief that federal law and the federal government’s prominence in immigration matters preclude Arizona’s law.
The Supreme Court is examining four parts of the law that have never gone into effect because of legal challenges. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit enjoined provisions of the law that:
● Require state and local law enforcement to verify the citizenship status of anyone stopped, detained or arrested when there is “reasonable suspicion” that the person is in the United States unlawfully.
● Authorize law enforcement officials to make an arrest without a warrant when an officer has “probable cause to believe . . . [t]he person to be arrested has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.”
● Make it a state crime to be in the United States unlawfully and require non-citizens to carry documents to prove they are legally in the country.
● Make it a state crime for a person who is not lawfully in the country to work or seek work. Federal law puts the burden on employers to verify the legality of those seeking work.
Immigration is one of the nation’s thorniest political issues and is playing an important role in the presidential contest.
Obama and his administration have been accused of not properly securing the nation’s borders and criticized for not delivering comprehensive immigration reform. Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s tough stance against illegal immigration has angered some interest groups and is said to have cost him among increasingly influential Latino voters.
The case is Arizona v. United States. Justice Elena Kagan has recused herself because of her involvement in the case as Obama’s solicitor general.
No comments:
Post a Comment