By appealing, Arizona defends its 2010 law which placed new restrictions on the activities of individuals suspected of being undocumented immigrants. A lower court blocked four parts of the law (described below) which are the subject of the current appeal:
- First, police are required, when they make any stop or arrest, to try to determine the individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has “reasonable suspicion that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present” in the U.S. If an individual is arrested, he or she cannot be released until immigration status is verified by the federal government. Section 2(B).
- Second, the law makes it a state crime for intentionally failing to obtain and carry legal immigration papers with them in the state. Section 3.
- Third, the the law makes it a misdemeanor under state law for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in the state. Section 5(C).
- Fourth, police are allowed to arrest, without a warrant, if the officer has “probable cause to believe” the person to have committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported. Section 6.
On Wednesday afternoon, the state of Arizona asked the U.S. Supreme Court to put back into effect four key parts of its controversial law — known as S.B. 1070 — giving police new duties to check up on the legal status of individuals who appear to be undocumented immigrants.
The petition, found here, raised a single question: whether federal immigration laws bar the Arizona approach. The state insisted that S.B. 1070 fits within an explicit clause in federal immigration law that authorizes the states to cooperate in enforcing the restrictions on undocumented immigrants, and allows states to do so without having to get express permission from Congress to do so.
Arizona’s challenge to the Ninth Circuit order blocking the four provisions has been filed in ample time for the Court to agree to hear the case, if it is going to do so, and to decide it in the coming Term that opens on October 3. The federal government has 30 days to reply to the petition, but may seek added time to do so. Even if it does, there appears to be plenty of time for the case to be granted, briefing, argued and decided before the Court finishes its coming Term.
In the U.S. Supreme Court’s last term, it upheld a separate Arizona law that imposed severe penalties on businesses that employed undocumented immigrants. (Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting, 09-115, decided May 26, and found here.) That decision, the petition contended, meant that “this Court has already rejected the argument that states have no role in enforcing federal immigration law,” because of the Whiting decision and one by the Court in 1982, in the case of Plyler v. Doe, dealing with the rights to education of children of immigrant parents.
For the full article see: Arizona appeals on alien control law : SCOTUSblog
Additionally, all of the articles in the Arizona v. United States series are available at Scotusblog.