The Hill
By Lydia Wheeler
June 1, 2015
In
denying to hear an appeal from Arizona Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, the
Supreme Court on Monday left in place a lower court’s decision to strike
down a state immigration
law.
In
October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit struck down a
law Arizona voters had passed in 2006 that made illegal immigrants
charged with “serious” felonies
ineligible for bail.
In
a divided panel, the court of appeals held that the law was
unconstitutional because it violated the 14th Amendment’s due process
clause by imposing punishment before
trial.
The
case — Lopez-Valenzuela v. Arpaio — stemmed from the class action
complaint Maricopa County inmates Angel Valenzuela and Isaac
Castro-Armenta filed against Maricopa
County, Sheriff Joseph Arpaio, the Maricopa County Attorney and the
presiding judge of the Maricopa County Superior Court in 2008.
On
Monday, six members of the Supreme Court denied to hear an Arpaio’s
appeal from Arpaio, overruling the more conservative members of the
Supreme Court – Justices Clarence
Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel Alito — who said they would have
heard the case.
“It
is disheartening that there are not four members of this court who
would even review the decision below,” Thomas wrote in his dissenting
opinion. “As I previously
explained, states deserve our careful consideration when lower courts
invalidate their constitutional provisions.”
Arpaio is currently challenging Obama’s executive actions on immigration in the nation’s second more influential court.
The
outspoken lawman has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit to overturn U.S. district court’s December 2014 and stop the
president from giving legal
status and work permits to nearly five million illegal immigrants.
During
arguments last month, the panel of three justices appeared skeptical of
the case as they questioned whether Arpaio has legal standing to
challenge the president’s
actions.
For more information, go to: www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com
No comments:
Post a Comment