Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
Today the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal of Arizona v. US, the case in which the Obama Administration is attempting to shut down the ability of States to do what the federal government is failing to do, ie, enforce the immigration laws. (ht: ScotusBlog)
Arizona is portraying this case as a test of state sovereignty -- and I agree with the State. Although the Constitution, and the Tenth Amendment in particular, are currently on life support, there is still vitality to the concept that the States retain a general "police power" within their borders -- this allows States to set social policies and law & order policies. Here, Arizona has a clearly expressed internal policy that scrupulously dovetails federal law. In no way does the Arizona law penalize anybody who is in the US lawfully. And yet, the Administration says that the Arizona law would "frustrate specific goals of federal policy," as reported in ScotusBlog. How?
Justice Kagan is not taking part in this case -- unlike the murky situation with ObamaCare, here Kagan could not credibly argue that she had no role in the Administration's decision to challenge the law. Kagan's recusal raises the possibility, which we discussed the other day, of a 4-4 tie. A tie would have the effect of simply upholding the Ninth Circuit Court decision, which represented a serious blow to state sovereignty by striking down the following four provisions of the Arizona law:
- A requirement that police in making any stop or arrest to try to determine the individual’s legal right to be in the U.S., if the officer has a “reasonable suspicion” of illegality. If arrested, the individual cannot be released until his legal status is verified by the federal government. That is the law’s Section 2(B).
- A provision making it a crime under state law for an individual to intentionally fail to obtain and carry legal immigrant papers with him while in Arizona (Section 3).
- A provision making it a misdemeanor for an undocumented immigrant to apply for a job, publicly solicit a job, or actually work in Arizona (Section 5[C]).
- And, a provision that allows police to arrest without a warrant any person for whom the officer has “probable cause to believe” that the individual has committed any crime, anywhere, that would make that individual subject to being deported (Section 6).
- Comment (5)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
And Justice Kagen has already recused herself, throwing into sharp relief her failure to do so over Obamacare.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
Care to handicap the possibility of one of the liberal justices respecting the constitution on this one?
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
Slim to none. This is the kind of case that makes me wish Justice O'Connor were still on the bench. For all her faults, she was an ardent advocate of federalism and she was sometimes able to persuade a liberal to go along with her.
Dec '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
Adam, we need our Grand Master Chess player Dr. Epstein to give us "the weak point in the other sides position". Then we concentrate force there and with Gd's help we could prevail. It's a shame what should be an obvious point of constitutional law requires the ghost of Bobby Fischer to crack the Obamite Russians. What it is it is.
May '10
Re: Breaking: SCOTUS Agrees to Review Arizona Immigration Law
Maybe I'm just jaded and cynical, but this case is one where I'd really like to see who voted to grant cert.