Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
James Poulos, Ed. ·
Jul 28, 2010 at 11:59am
Via Mark Hemingway: U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has "blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown."
The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents — including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws. The judge also put on hold parts of the law that required immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and made it illegal for undocumented workers to solicit employment in public places.
The wire report notes that Judge Bolton's hold is in effect "until the courts resolve the issues." It's on now.
- Comment (18)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
I expect a slow trial.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
I've only skimmed the order this afternoon as my day job has allowed and I may have to amend this post, but I'm unimpressed. Judge Bolton's order is a preliminary injunction, which only has effect during the litigation (hence Aaron's comment above predicting a slow trial). The U.S. was required to show a likelihood of "irreparable harm" if the law is to remain in operation during the litigation to obtain the preliminary injunction. As best I can tell, the "irreparable harm" the U.S. fears and which the court seems to have bought is that complying with Arizona's requests to check immigration status - which DHS is already required to do by statute - will just be too hard.
I often litigate motions for preliminary injunction. Because I haven't closely read the opinion yet I will temper my reaction, but I think the court set the bar for "irreparable harm" very low here. I just may cite it when I ask for a preliminary injunction as authority that the harm need not really be all that bad (I jest).
Hat tip to Power Line: check out Andy McCarthy's reaction at The Corner.
Edited on Jul 28, 2010 at 3:14pmMay '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Yabbut you bjust know the Obama-Holder tag team is trying for this. It's sort of bizarre. Racism. Unions. Total 60's throwback. If there's a way, they won't rest until they find it. Sigh.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
You jest. Others won't. Might this precedent really have a broad effect on future injunctions around the country?
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Aaron Miller
You jest. Others won't. Might this precedent really have a broad effect on future injunctions around the country? · Jul 28 at 2:41pm
Again, this is all back-of-the-napkin, but I doubt it:
1. It's early in the case. Plus, the order looks odd in that it is loaded up with legal citations, but doesn't seem to have the factual development you'd normally expect to support a PI.
2. It's much more of a political issue than legal when you get down to it. In that sense, it's a bit like Bush v. Gore.
3. It's a court within the Ninth Circuit which, considering the rate at which the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit, means that for practical purposes there's not going to be a line of people clamoring to rest their case on this opinion.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
I think the judge is saying that if the feds choose not to enforce our immigration laws, then Arizona has no business helping them. I think that's the argument.
Jun '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
The American voter is the nicest friendliest mutt in the world, but if the Left keeps poking that lovable old dog with a sharp stick, over and over, like it's doing today, November 2nd will be the day that old dog turns and removes big chunks from liberal Democrat rear ends. The voters are on simmer over the border issue, the stowaway issue, and building up steam. Even the nicest dog will only take so much teasing and abuse.
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Matthew Gilley
Aaron Miller
You jest. Others won't. Might this precedent really have a broad effect on future injunctions around the country? · Jul 28 at 2:41pm
Again, this is all back-of-the-napkin, but I doubt it:
[...]
It's a court within the Ninth Circuit which, considering the rate at which the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit, means that for practical purposes there's not going to be a line of people clamoring to rest their case on this opinion.
So what you're telling us, Matthew, is that this is headed to SCOTUS?
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
That's why, cynically speaking, this is a political win for R's, vis-a-vis November. The law itself was bound to be flawed in practice--all laws are--but now voters will A) have righteous indignation and B) maintain what is likely an unrealistically-idyllic perception of "what might have been" had Obama and the gang not intervened.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
We seriously need to hear from more legal immigrants on this. My mom, who stood many lines and willingly, happily leapt many hurdles to immigrate, is fit to be ties about all this.
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Would you be willing to share how long she waited, mesquito? A common defense of illegal immigration is that the lines are simply so long that for the vast majority they're not really lines at all.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Why doesn't Arizona simply create a law that incorporates the entirety of the analogous federal law; then what would the federal courts do?
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
James Poulos, Ed.
Would you be willing to share how long she waited, mesquito? A common defense of illegal immigration is that the lines are simply so long that for the vast majority they're not really lines at all. · Jul 28 at 6:08pm
The entire process to get a visa took about 18 months, I believe. It included two trips across country to be interviewed at the embassy in Oslo. (Each trip required at least three days.) It also required that her sponsor, an aunt whom she had never met, post a bond in New York guaranteeing that Mom would never require public assistance. The American officials balked at the news that mom belonged to a clerical union, so there were delays while they made sure she wasn't a goddam communist or something. I'm grateful for that part, because I'd hate for my mom to be a goddam communist or something.
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Ricochet contributor Jim Pinkerton suggests that this might be a new kind of Roe v. Wade:
Interesting chain of events.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Scott Reusser
That's why, cynically speaking, this is a political win for R's, vis-a-vis November. The law itself was bound to be flawed in practice--all laws are--but now voters will A) have righteous indignation and B) maintain what is likely an unrealistically-idyllic perception of "what might have been" had Obama and the gang not intervened. · Jul 28 at 5:09pm
I totally agree! This lawsuit was a no-win situation. Every supporter of the law (well above the majority) now think that the Obama administration is preventing a dramatic improvement in the illegal problem in the Southwest.
The better political tactic was to allow the law to take effect and wait for the negative impacts. It's a no lose strategy .. if the law works, move on and shut up. If it doesn't, beat the Republicans over the head with it in every close race this fall.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
James Poulos, Ed.
Matthew Gilley
Aaron Miller
You jest. Others won't. Might this precedent really have a broad effect on future injunctions around the country? · Jul 28 at 2:41pm
Again, this is all back-of-the-napkin, but I doubt it:
[...]
It's a court within the Ninth Circuit which, considering the rate at which the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit, means that for practical purposes there's not going to be a line of people clamoring to rest their case on this opinion.
So what you're telling us, Matthew, is that this is headed to SCOTUS? · Jul 28 at 4:40pm
No - I'd be getting way ahead of things by saying that. There's a lot of ground to cover before the Supreme Court comes into play. My point was just a narrow observation that this opinion is unlikely to impact how federal litigation proceeds elsewhere.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
I'm a broken record across the site, but it's all about the base right now ahead of the November elections. This only works as an issue to mobilize the base if you strike while the iron is hot. The base knew all it needed to know about the law -- it was NEVER going to be ok, so no point in delay. Once you let go of the idea of the administration attempting to appeal to the center, everything they're doing makes perfect sense.
May '10
Re: Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement
Trace Urdan
I'm a broken record across the site, but it's all about the base right now ahead of the November elections. This only works as an issue to mobilize the base if you strike while the iron is hot. The base knew all it needed to know about the law -- it was NEVER going to be ok, so no point in delay. Once you let go of the idea of the administration attempting to appeal to the center, everything they're doing makes perfect sense. · Jul 29 at 5:38am
Trace is spot on. This is a political fight, not legal. The old saw is that bad facts make bad law. I think politics leads to even worse law.