APRIL 18, 2012
Arizona v. United States: Showdown in the Supreme Court
For the second year in a row, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear an immigration case out of the State of Arizona. And for the second time is as many years, the Obama administration has sued the State of Arizona in the hopes of stopping its state law aimed at curbing the problem of illegal immigration.
The Heritage Foundation will host a distinguished panel next Monday, April 23rd, to preview the arguments next week before the Supreme Court. Click here to RSVP or watch online >>
Recall that on May 26, 2011, the Court issued its 5-3 decision in Chamber of Commerce v. Whiting that upheld the Legal Arizona Workers Act of 2007, allowing the state to require employers to use the E-Verify system and revoke the business licenses of employers who knowingly hire illegal immigrants. After that decision, we wrote that the impact of that common sense ruling was to give states “a license to enforce immigration laws.”
The legal issue before the nations’ highest court next week is whether federal immigration law prevents Arizona from engaging in cooperative law enforcement and impliedly preempts four provisions of Arizona's new state law S.B. 1070. That law allows an Arizona law enforcement officer who stops someone based on reasonable suspicion that they committed a crime—if the officer develops independent reasonable suspicion that the person is an illegal alien—to question the person about his nationality.
That common sense procedure is necessary to fight the disruptive influx of illegal aliens in the state, and does not violate federal immigration law according to the State of Arizona. Arizona claims that that provision of the law has been narrowly tailored to prevent racial profiling. Opponents of S.B. 1070, including illegal aliens’ rights groups and the Obama Justice Department, claim that the law is preempted by federal immigration law and thus is unconstitutional.
There are similarities between the case last year and the one presently before the High Court.
First, Supreme Court Associate Justice Elena Kagan recused herself in the Whiting case. As President Barack Obama’s former Solicitor General, in charge of all matters before the Court, she decided not to take part in the case, hence the eight votes (5-3) instead of the typical nine voting members in a typical decision. She has recused herself in next week's S.B. 1070 case as well.
Second, the Obama administration has joined forces once again with advocates for illegal aliens, including the ACLU, MALDEF, National Council of La Raza, and the American Bar Association (among others) in the case against Arizona. They lost last year, and may lose again, based in part on the reasoning set forth in the Whiting case.
Former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who recently argued before the Supreme Court on behalf of 26 states in the Obamacare case, will represent the State of Arizona. In the first sentence of his brief to the Court, Mr. Clement explains the negative impact of the federal governments’ uneven enforcement of immigration laws on Arizona saying, “Arizona shoulders a disproportionate burden of the national problem of illegal immigration.”
Those problems include increased crime by illegal aliens and staggering financial costs in areas of crime control, medical expenses, and education. Arizona has spent hundreds of millions of taxpayer money to cover the cost of illegal immigration in its state. As Arizona’s brief before the Court states, “The public-safety and economic strains that this places on Arizona and its residents have created an emergency situation, which demanded a response.” That response was their state law S.B. 1070.
How the Court will ultimately rule is anyone’s guess. But the Obama administration has an uphill battle. What do you think of Arizona's immigration law? Read our full analysis and interact with other readers online >>
 |
|
 | | | |  |
Holder v. Pine:
The Pro-Life Counselor Case
The Obama Administration's Dept. of Justice has a record of baseless prosecution of pro-life activists, most recently a sidewalk counselor from Florida named Mary Susan Pine. Attorney General Eric Holder sought to punish Pine for appearing peacefully outside of a women’s health clinic to talk to women as they considered procuring abortions. Recently, a federal judge dismissed Holder's case against Pine, stating that the record is "entirely devoid of evidence that Ms. Pine... engaged in any unlawful conduct."
Read the rest of the story >> |
| | | |
|  | The Center for Legal and Judicial Studies at The Heritage Foundation Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is the nation’s most broadly supported public policy organization. Heritage created the Center for Legal and Judicial Studies in 2001 to educate government officials, the media and the public about the Constitution, legal principles and how they affect public policy. |
|
The Heritage Foundation | 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, Washington, DC 20002 | 202.546.4400 | heritage.org
|
No comments:
Post a Comment