Here We Go: Federal Judge Blocks Arizona Immigration Law Enforcement

 

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.

There are 18 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Profile Photo Member
    @AaronMiller

    I expect a slow trial.

    • #1
  2. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MatthewGilley

    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.

    • #2
  3. Profile Photo Inactive
    @KennedySmith

    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.

    • #3
  4. Profile Photo Member
    @AaronMiller
    Matthew Gilley: 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). · Jul 28 at 2:21pm

    You jest. Others won’t. Might this precedent really have a broad effect on future injunctions around the country?

    • #4
  5. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MatthewGilley
    Aaron Miller

    Matthew Gilley: 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). · Jul 28 at 2:21pm

    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.

    • #5
  6. Profile Photo Member
    @

    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.

    • #6
  7. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MelFoil

    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.

    • #7
  8. Profile Photo Contributor
    @JamesPoulos
    Matthew Gilley

    Aaron Miller

    Matthew Gilley: 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). · Jul 28 at 2:21pm

    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?

    • #8
  9. Profile Photo Member
    @ScottR
    etoiledunord: 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. · Jul 28 at 3:38pm

    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.

    • #9
  10. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MatthewGilley
    James Poulos, Ed.

    Matthew Gilley

    Aaron Miller

    Matthew Gilley: 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). · Jul 28 at 2:21pm

    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.

    • #10
  11. Profile Photo Member
    @

    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.

    • #11
  12. Profile Photo Member
    @
    tomjedrz 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. · Jul 28 at 10:24pm

    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.

    • #12
  13. Profile Photo Contributor
    @JamesPoulos
    mesquito: 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. · Jul 28 at 5:36pm

    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.

    • #13
  14. Profile Photo Inactive
    @MatthewGilley
    Trace Urdan

    tomjedrz 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. · Jul 28 at 10:24pm

    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.

    • #14
  15. Profile Photo Member
    @ParisParamus

    Why doesn’t Arizona simply create a law that incorporates the entirety of the analogous federal law; then what would the federal courts do?

    • #15
  16. Profile Photo Member
    @
    James Poulos, Ed.

    mesquito: 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. · Jul 28 at 5:36pm

    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.

    • #16
  17. Profile Photo Editor
    @RobLong

    Ricochet contributor Jim Pinkerton suggests that this might be a new kind of Roe v. Wade:

    Smart lawyers and judges get together to short-circuit the political process. Having thwarted public opinion, the legal elites high-five each other for their cleverness. Where have we seen this before? Oh yes, I remember: Roe v. Wade. And yet Roe happened in the pre-Rush Limbaugh era. Anti-elite backlashes happen much quicker now, and are even more powerful, thanks to new media. Think Dubai Ports Deal. Think Khaled Sheik Mohammed trial location. Think mosque at Ground Zero. The Obama Justice Department has lit yet another fuse.
    Interesting chain of events.
    • #17
  18. Profile Photo Member
    @TomJedrz
    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.

    • #18

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.