Supreme Court OK with parts of Arizona immigration law; Bolton OK's Status Check

[CeeKay]

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/25/11388195-supreme-court-signals-its-ok-with-parts-of-arizonas-immigration-law?lite

The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Wednesday it appears ready to uphold one of the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law: a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.

Wading into a highly divisive issue in the middle of a presidential campaign year, conservative and liberal justices who heard oral arguments on Wednesday morning seemed to find no strong objection to that section of the law, which also allows police to stop and arrest anyone they reasonably believe is in the country illegally.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who casts the deciding vote in many cases, referred to the "social and economic disruption'' that states endure as a result of a flood of illegal immigrants and suggested that states such as Arizona have authority to act.

"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the more liberal-leaning judges, told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, referring to his arguments that the law would lead to harassment of citizens.

of course 'a requirement that police officers check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally' is leaving it to the officer to decide, so some may be more lenient on performing a status check.  and even if they were told that they couldn't make the requirement law, couldn't officers check anyways if they wanted to be sure?

[CeeKay]

looks like they made a decision:

http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398271-high-court-strikes-down-key-parts-of-arizona-immigration-law?lite

The Supreme Court upheld one part of the Arizona immigration law but struck down other sections.

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government.

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

    One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
    One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
    And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

[CeeKay]

naturally both parties are claiming victory with the decision:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12399932-both-sides-declare-victory-in-courts-immigration-ruling?lite

Democrats and Republicans each found something to cheer in the Supreme Court's ruling Monday on Arizona's controversial immigration law, reflecting the delicate politics surrounding immigration and the court's own mixed decision.

Each party found something to like and dislike in the Supreme Court's opinion, which struck down most components of the Arizona law but left in place one of its most controversial provisions: the requirement that authorities check the immigration status of anyone they detain who's reasonably suspected of being in the United States illegally.

President Obama said he was "pleased" the court had struck down key provisions of the law, while his likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, suggested the decision represented a rebuke of the president.

[CeeKay]

further developments:

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Arizona authorities can enforce the most contentious section of the state's immigration law, which critics have dubbed the "show me your papers" provision.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton clears the way for police to carry out the requirement that officers, while enforcing other laws, question the immigration status of those they suspect are in the country illegally.

The provision has been at the center of a two-year legal battle that resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision in June upholding the requirement, ruling against the Obama administration, which filed the initial challenge.

The Obama administration declared a measure of victory at the time, as the court said local police cannot detain anyone on an immigration violation unless federal immigration officials say so.

After the nation's highest court weighed in, opponents asked Bolton to block the provision outright by arguing that it would lead to systematic racial profiling and unreasonably long detentions of Latinos if it's enforced.

Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, however, urged the judge to let the requirement go into effect, saying the law's opponents were merely speculating in their racial profiling claims. The Republican governor's office also said police have received training to avoid discriminatory practices and that officers must have reasonable suspicion that a person is in the country illegally to trigger the requirement.

In her ruling, Bolton said the court will not ignore the clear direction from the Supreme Court that the provision "cannot be challenged further on its face before the law takes effect." She reiterated the high court's interpretation that the law might be able to be challenged as unconstitutional on other grounds.