Wall Street Journal: Several Supreme Court justices said they couldn't see legal problems in a central part of Arizona's tough anti-immigration law, but some other provisions of the law received more skepticism at arguments Wednesday.
Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow at least one provision of Arizona's tough anti-immigration law to stand but asked few questions about other provisions. Peter Landers has details on Lunch Break. Photo: AP.
In a session that went 20 minutes over the allotted time, the justices focused on one section of the law that requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if the officers are suspicious of the person's right to be in the U.S.
Several justices said they couldn't understand the legal distinction between allowing ad-hoc checking of a person's immigration status and codifying that into a general policy, since federal law already requires the federal government to answer questions from state officials about a person's status.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the section merely required state officers to notify the federal government that they had picked up an illegal immigrant and it was entirely up to the federal government to decide whether to take action against that person. Chief Justice Roberts said he couldn't understand how that interfered with federal discretion over immigration enforcement.
The question before the court was whether the Arizona law interfered with federal law, which both sides agree enjoys primacy in questions of immigration.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, said the status-checking provision worked with the Arizona law's other provisions to undermine federal immigration policy as legislated by Congress.
But no member of the court—even those on the liberal wing—expressed clear agreement with Mr. Verrilli's stance on that point. "You can see it's not selling very well," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said she was confused by Mr. Verrilli's answer as to why a statewide rule on checking status was worse than an ad-hoc policy.
In addition to requiring the status checks, the 2010 Arizona law makes it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, authorizes police to arrest any foreign citizen they believe has committed a deportable offense and makes it a crime for foreigners to fail to carry registration documents.
Chief Justice Roberts said he was troubled by the provision criminalizing job seeking because he said it went further than federal law in punishing illegal immigrants. Justice Sotomayor also expressed concerns about that part of the law, saying Congress rejected the idea of punishing illegal immigrants who seek work.
The chief justice opened his questioning of Mr. Verrilli by seeking to clarify whether the government was accusing Arizona of racial profiling. Mr. Verrilli said he wasn't making that argument.
The high court was hearing a case at the heart of the political dispute over immigration policy.
Outside the Supreme Court, people demonstrated for and against the law.
"It's an insult, an unmitigated insult, that the federal government is suing a state for doing a job that the federal government refuses to do," said Paul Shoemaker, a retired foreign-service worker from Vienna, Va.
If the court were to uphold the law, "it would be nothing short [of] a historic decision that would legalize discrimination and harassment," said demonstrator Frank Sharry to a small group opposing the law.
Federal courts have blocked the Arizona law from taking effect. Even so, it has sparked copycat measures in Alabama and other states.
Proponents of the Arizona law say they have sought to reduce the state's illegal population, or achieve "attrition by enforcement." They call the law a success because many immigrants without papers have voluntarily left.
On Tuesday, former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect of the state law, appeared before a Senate panel. "The invasion of illegal aliens we face today—convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers and even terrorists—pose one of the greatest threats to our nation," he told the lawmakers.
Critics say the state's image has suffered, and some groups have canceled conventions amid calls for a boycott of Arizona. Mr. Pearce lost his seat last year in a recall vote.
Each of the four provisions struck down by lower courts involves a separate legal analysis, meaning that the Supreme Court could uphold some but not others. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general when the Obama administration filed its challenge to the Arizona law, recused herself.
The decision is likely to come in the final days of June, around the same time as the court's ruling in another blockbuster case, the constitutional challenge to President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul.
Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a separate Arizona law putting out of business companies that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. Over objections from the Obama administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups, the court held 5-3 that Congress had given states authority to strip corporate charters and other essential permits to punish employers for immigration violations.
Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow at least one provision of Arizona's tough anti-immigration law to stand but asked few questions about other provisions. Peter Landers has details on Lunch Break. Photo: AP.
In a session that went 20 minutes over the allotted time, the justices focused on one section of the law that requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone they stop if the officers are suspicious of the person's right to be in the U.S.
Several justices said they couldn't understand the legal distinction between allowing ad-hoc checking of a person's immigration status and codifying that into a general policy, since federal law already requires the federal government to answer questions from state officials about a person's status.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the section merely required state officers to notify the federal government that they had picked up an illegal immigrant and it was entirely up to the federal government to decide whether to take action against that person. Chief Justice Roberts said he couldn't understand how that interfered with federal discretion over immigration enforcement.
The question before the court was whether the Arizona law interfered with federal law, which both sides agree enjoys primacy in questions of immigration.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, representing the Obama administration, said the status-checking provision worked with the Arizona law's other provisions to undermine federal immigration policy as legislated by Congress.
But no member of the court—even those on the liberal wing—expressed clear agreement with Mr. Verrilli's stance on that point. "You can see it's not selling very well," said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who said she was confused by Mr. Verrilli's answer as to why a statewide rule on checking status was worse than an ad-hoc policy.
In addition to requiring the status checks, the 2010 Arizona law makes it a crime for immigrants without work permits to seek employment, authorizes police to arrest any foreign citizen they believe has committed a deportable offense and makes it a crime for foreigners to fail to carry registration documents.
Chief Justice Roberts said he was troubled by the provision criminalizing job seeking because he said it went further than federal law in punishing illegal immigrants. Justice Sotomayor also expressed concerns about that part of the law, saying Congress rejected the idea of punishing illegal immigrants who seek work.
The chief justice opened his questioning of Mr. Verrilli by seeking to clarify whether the government was accusing Arizona of racial profiling. Mr. Verrilli said he wasn't making that argument.
The high court was hearing a case at the heart of the political dispute over immigration policy.
Outside the Supreme Court, people demonstrated for and against the law.
"It's an insult, an unmitigated insult, that the federal government is suing a state for doing a job that the federal government refuses to do," said Paul Shoemaker, a retired foreign-service worker from Vienna, Va.
If the court were to uphold the law, "it would be nothing short [of] a historic decision that would legalize discrimination and harassment," said demonstrator Frank Sharry to a small group opposing the law.
Federal courts have blocked the Arizona law from taking effect. Even so, it has sparked copycat measures in Alabama and other states.
Proponents of the Arizona law say they have sought to reduce the state's illegal population, or achieve "attrition by enforcement." They call the law a success because many immigrants without papers have voluntarily left.
On Tuesday, former Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, the architect of the state law, appeared before a Senate panel. "The invasion of illegal aliens we face today—convicted felons, drug cartels, gang members, human traffickers and even terrorists—pose one of the greatest threats to our nation," he told the lawmakers.
Critics say the state's image has suffered, and some groups have canceled conventions amid calls for a boycott of Arizona. Mr. Pearce lost his seat last year in a recall vote.
Each of the four provisions struck down by lower courts involves a separate legal analysis, meaning that the Supreme Court could uphold some but not others. Justice Elena Kagan, who was solicitor general when the Obama administration filed its challenge to the Arizona law, recused herself.
The decision is likely to come in the final days of June, around the same time as the court's ruling in another blockbuster case, the constitutional challenge to President Barack Obama's health-care overhaul.
Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a separate Arizona law putting out of business companies that repeatedly hire illegal immigrants. Over objections from the Obama administration, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and labor groups, the court held 5-3 that Congress had given states authority to strip corporate charters and other essential permits to punish employers for immigration violations.
No comments:
Post a Comment