Federal judge blocks provisions of Arizona immigration law
A judge for the US District Court for the District of Arizona on July 28 issued a preliminary injunction against several provisions of the controversial Arizona immigration law, set to take effect the next day. The injunction comes at the request of the US Department of Justice (DoJ), which filed suit challenging the constitutionality of the law earlier this month. Judge Susan Bolton rejected the DoJ's argument that the law should be enjoined in its entirety, finding that the individual provisions were severable.
Bolton issued the injunction against provisions of the law requiring the verification of the immigration status of people stopped in the enforcement of other laws, and authorizing the warrantless arrest of those police have probable cause to believe have committed an offense that could lead to deportation. The court also enjoined a provision of the law requiring non-citizens to carry their papers with them at all times, agreeing with the DoJ's assertion that "the federal government has long rejected a system by which aliens' papers are routinely demanded and checked."
Bolton ruled that the the government was likely to prevail in its claim that these provisions are superseded by federal law, violating the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, and would suffer irreparable harm if the provisions went into effect because they would impair its ability to enforce federal policy. The court declined to enjoin several other provisions of the law, finding that the DoJ was not likely to prevail in its claims against them. This included provisions making it a state crime to harbor undocumented immigrants and allowing for the impoundment of vehicles used in their transportation.
The DoJ filed its complaint earlier this month, arguing that the Constitution and federal law "do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country." The DoJ also claims that the federal government has preeminent authority to regulate immigration matters and that the enforcement of the Arizona law is counterproductive to the national immigration policy, and will interfere with foreign relations with Mexico and other countries.
The law has been widely criticized as unconstitutional and allegedly legalizing racial profiling. Also in July, the American Bar Association (ABA) filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the DoJ lawsuit, following the submission of another amicus curiae brief in support of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). In the brief filed in support of the US, the ABA also argues that the Arizona law would interfere with law enforcement officers' public safety functions and infringe on both citizens' and non-citizens' constitutional rights by placing upon them the burden of proving their citizenship.
From Jurist, July 28. Used with permission.
See our last posts on the politics of immigration and the struggle in Arizona.
Arpaio rides again
Maricopa County's Sheriff Joe Arpaio launched his 17th "crime suppression" sweep in the Phoenix area, openly boasting that he timed it for the day SB 1070 took effect to send a message that nothing is changing despite Judge Bolton's ruling. "We're looking for anybody who violates the law," he said. "If we find any illegal aliens, they are going to be arrested."
The operation began about 4 PM after being delayed for several hours while his deputies responded to anti-1070 demonstrations outside the county jail in Phoenix. Several protesters were arrested, and a legal observer and a news photographer were among the detained. Then, teams of Arpaio's deputies, followed by media vans, spread out across the city and county, looking for "illegal aliens." Since launching the sweeps in 2008, his deputies have made nearly 1,000 arrests, nearly 70% of them "illegals," according to Arpaio's department. Most have been for minor offenses.
Arpaio remains under investigation by the US Justice Department of for possible civil rights violations. "Arrest Arpaio, not the people!" was a favored chant at the protests in Phoenix. "Joe Arpaio has shown a disregard for basic constitutional protections," said Chris Newman, legal director for the National Day Laborers Organizing Network, who traveled from Los Angeles to Phoenix for the protest.
Last year, the Obama administration stripped Arpaio of some of his special authority to make federal immigration arrests through the 287(g) program. However, he retains some federally granted authority that allows his jail officers to speed up deportations.
One of the remaining parts of SB 1070 not affected by the injunction allows Arizona to block "sanctuary city" policies limiting enforcement of federal immigration law. Phoenix itself is a "sanctuary city," pitting the municipal police against Arpaio's deputies. So are Mesa, Chandler and Tucson. "Striking down these sanctuary city policies has always been the No. 1 priority," said State Sen. Russell Pearce, the law's chief author. He boasted that Bolton's failure to apply the injunction to that part of the law removes the "political handcuffs" from law enforcement in those locales.
Protests were also held across the country as SB 1070 took effect. In Los Angeles, some 200 blocked traffic on Wilshire Boulevard for hours. At least 10 were arrested after the activists chained themselves together with plastic pipes and handcuffs. (LAT, WSJ, July 30; Fox News, July 29)
Ninth Circuit denies Arizona bid to lift injunction
The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit July 30 denied the state of Arizona's request for an expedited appeal to lift the preliminary injunction issued a day earlier against several provisions of a controversial immigration law. The court set a briefing schedule with the opening brief due Aug. 26 and the answering brief due Sept. 23, and scheduled a hearing to occur the week of Nov. 1. No extensions will be granted "absent extraordinary and compelling circumstances." (Jurist, July 31)
Cartel bounty on Arpaio's head?
From AP, Aug. 2:
Now, why would a Mexican cartel want to kill Arpaio? As a populist PR move? And note that which cartel is not mentioned. Does this one smell right?
Arpaio sticks it to feds —and his own county
The Justice Department on Sept. 2 filed suit against Sheriff Joe Arpaio for refusing to release records and grant access to facilities in their investigation of whether his aggressive operations against illegal immigrants have violated their civil rights.
At stake is $113 million in future funding from the federal government that goes toward county services from housing to childcare. While the sheriff's office receives about $3.8 million in federal funds, which is less than 5% of its budget, for the county the impact could be catastrophic. "The health and welfare of our community shouldn’t be at risk because one rogue agency doesn't want to provide records," said Cari Gerchik, a spokesperson for Maricopa County.
Arpaio has reacted with defiance. "This is the people of Arizona they are going against, using me as a puppet," Arpaio said at a press conference in response to the suit. "They're not going to put handcuffs on this sheriff. I'm not going to surrender!" (NAM, Sept. 4; ABC News, WSJ, Sept. 3)
Joe Arpaio going down: report
File under "instant karma." From Talking Points Memo, Sept. 23:
Related news from the Arizona Republic, Sept. 25:
Adios, amigo.