Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
Today, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer announced her state's suit against the federal government. It seems to me that this law suit is political not legal. It is intended to draw attention to the difficulties that Arizona faces in trying to protect its own citizens. But the thought that it will generate any specific relief, i.e. orders for the federal government to do certain actions, or monetary damages seems to be far fetched. There are all sorts of public duties, but many of these are not enforced by law suits. The ultimate resolution will have to be political on the five claims named in the suit.
Brewer's ulterior motive is to use these allegations to help beat back the federal law suit now on appeal in the Ninth Circuit. My sense is that it will have little or no effect on that decision. Once again the federal dominance is powerful along natural borders. Don't expect this law suit to change that.
- Comment (6)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
Not sure what you mean by natural borders here, but apparently the problem here is that the Federal government isn't exercising its dominance or power sufficiently along our national borders. It may puff itself up and show how strong it can be toward weak little Arizona, but not toward the torrent of humanity flowing into the country.
Aug '10
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
Not to engage in backseat lawyering, but why weren't any such counterclaims filed with the state's answer in the original suit? Seems to me that Fed.R.Civ.P. 13(a) would require it. Easy response by the Federal govt is a motion to dismiss based on the failure to file the compulsory counterclaim.
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
I would say that the lawsuit has almost no chance and amounts to a political stunt. Under Governor Pete Wilson, California brought similar claims in a lawsuit against the Clinton administration in the mid-1990s. If memory serves, the US appeals court for the 9th circuit -- which also governs Arizona -- refused to hear the case. It found, I think, that it was up to Congress to provide any remedy for these claims, and the controversy was really political, not legal, in nature. The courts had no place deciding whether the federal government was performing its immigration and border control functions properly.
Dec '10
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
As I understand it, the DoJ's claim is essentially that no matter what the Federal laws are regarding border protection and preventing "illegal immigration", the Federal government can selectively decide when, where, how, and even whether to enforce them as a matter of foreign policy.
This is part of the DoJ's lawsuit against AZ. If the Federal government decides to virtually open the AZ border to Mexico, for the greater good of the country, it can, or so the DoJ claims. They assert AZ can only enforce Federal immigration laws when, where, and how the Federal government says they can.
So AZ cannot sue the Federal government for not enforcing laws it can choose to ignore as a matter of foreign policy.
Extrapolating this reasoning, if the Federal government decides it is in the best interest of the country as a whole it could cede the entire state of AZ to Mexico and there is nothing AZ could do about it, except engage in armed rebellion and resistance.
So much for State's Rights.
Jan '11
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
I would like to ask Mr. Yoo, does Arizona then have any better option? Is there no redress against the federal government for what amounts to incompetence in fullfililng its duty?
Oct '10
Re: Arizona Counter Sues Federal Government
Rather than say that the suit is "political not legal", would it not be more accurate to say that the legal arguement is being advanced to support a political objective? Is this not appropriate when there is a conflict in the interpretation of law when it applies to political entities?