Shoots down most others
IN A 5-3 split decision, the US Supreme Court upheld one controversial provision of Arizona’s anti-immigrant law, SB 1070, that allows police officers to inquire into a person’s US immigration status during routine stops. The provision, which the State had previously been enjoined from enforcing by lower-court rulings, will now immediately be enforced in Arizona. The bulk of the law’s anti-immigrant provisions, however, such as provision that made it a state crime for illegal immigrants to seek work, will remain blocked, as the Justices affirmed the federal government’s supremacy over the states when it comes to immigration policy.
Only 8 Justices participated in the decision, as Justice Elena Kagen was forced to recuse herself from the case, as she had served as Solicitor General when the Obama Administration had sued Arizona to enjoin enforcement of SB 1070. Justice Anthony Kennedy, wrote the opinion joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. Not surprisingly, conservative Justices Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas partially dissented, arguing that most of the law, if not all, should have been upheld.
Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion was based on the idea that the federal government’s “power to determine immigration policy is well settled,” although he acknowledged Arizona’s “outsized burden” in dealing with illegal immigration, somewhat understanding of Arizona’s to usurp the Federal Government’s responsibility for immigration enforcement. “Arizona bears many of the consequences of unlawful immigration,” he wrote. “Hundreds of thousands of deportable aliens are apprehended in Arizona each year.” Nonetheless, the justices found that Arizona had overstepped its authority in attempting to enforce state penalties for federal immigration violations. Kennedy noted, “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
The police immigration checks are allowed, however, because state police would simply flag federal authorities if they found an illegal immigrant. The federal government would then decide if they wanted to try to deport the suspect, or let him or her go. The decision left open the question of what would happen if these “checks” were implemented in an illegal way, which leave open the possibility of more lawsuits to enjoin the “status check” provision.
(www.asianjournal.com)
(LA Midweek June 27 – 29, 2012 MDWK sec. B pg.2)
