| Arizona v. United States | |
|---|---|
Supreme Court of the United States |
|
| Full case name | Arizona, et al. v. United States |
| Docket nos. | 11-182 |
| Prior history | Injunction against Arizona, 703 F.Supp.2d 980 (D. Ariz., 2010); affirmed and remanded, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir., 2011); certiorari granted ___ U.S. ___ |
| Holding | |
| Whether Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act is preempted by federal immigration law. | |
| Court membership | |
The United States of America v. The State of Arizona is a federal lawsuit filed by the United States Justice Department in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010,[1] challenging Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act as usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The plaintiffs also referenced the notion of federal preemption and stated that, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country".[2] Additionally, the Justice Department in its July 6, 2010 motion requested that the federal courts issue an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law before it goes into effect.[3] Arizona responded to the motion.[4] The 1976 precedent of De Canas v. Bica was relied upon in Arizona's Motion.
Contents |
"Against a backdrop of rampant undocumented immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns, the Arizona Legislature enacted a set of statutes and statutory amendments in the form of Senate Bill 1070, the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 113, which Governor Janice K. Brewer signed into law on April 23, 2010. Seven days later, the Governor signed into law a set of amendments to Senate Bill 1070 under House Bill 2162, 2010 Arizona Session Laws, Chapter 211.1 Among other things, S.B. 1070 requires officers to check a person’s immigration status under certain circumstances (Section 2) and authorizes officers to make a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe that the person committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States (Section 6). S.B. 1070 also creates or amends crimes for the failure of an undocumented immigrant to apply for or carry registration papers (Section 3), the smuggling of human beings (Section 4), the performance of work by undocumented immigrants, and the transport or harboring of undocumented immigrants(Section 5)." See 7.28.10 Bolton order, which is linked below.
"On July 6, 2010, the United States filed a Complaint with this Court challenging the constitutionality of S.B. 1070, and it also filed a Motion requesting that the Court issue a preliminary injunction to enjoin Arizona from enforcing S.B. 1070 until the Court can make a final determination as to its constitutionality. The United States argues principally that the power to regulate immigration is vested exclusively in the federal government, and that the provisions of S.B. 1070 are therefore preempted by federal law." See 7.28.10 Bolton order, which is linked below.
On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB 1070, or the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act".[5] The act made it a state misdemeanor crime for an undocumented immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting undocumented immigrants.[6]
The bill's passage immediately sparked concerns over potential civil rights violations and have accused it of encouraging racial profiling.[7][8][9] Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010 (International Workers' Day).[10][11][12] A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and chanting "Sí se puede".[10][11][13] The city had become the national epicenter of protests against the Arizona law.[13] Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas and more than 5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other cities generally attracted around a thousand people or so.[11][12] There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."[12]
On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled, blocking key portions of SB 1070 including "requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country undocumented would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested."[14] Judge Bolton wrote:
Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona[14]
Governor Brewer has promised to appeal the ruling, calling it "a temporary bump in the road." [15]
Several states have jointly filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae. The brief supports Arizona. The States of Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia, along with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, filed their proposed brief on July 14, 2010. The brief "defends the States' authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws, especially in light of the selective and even lack of enforcement of those laws by the Obama administration. Under the current situation, the States have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law."[16] The Latin American countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed an amicus brief in support of the United States.
Additionally, 81 Congressmen have jointly filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae.[17][18] The brief supports Arizona.
On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton issued an order denying in part and granting in part the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction heard the prior week.[19]
Among the provisions that will go into effect are the following: A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws; A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F): requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to undocumented immigrants; and, A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. See 7/28/2010 Order
An appeal of the US District Court's 7/28/2010 ruling was filed on July 29, 2010. A motion to expedite the normal appeal schedule was also filed. Arizona gave the following reasons for the motion to expedite:[20]
Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit Rules 27-12 and 34-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1657 because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of SB 1070 that the Arizona Legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of undocumented immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government. An expedited briefing schedule will not unreasonably burden the parties because it is consistent with the expedited briefing schedule Plaintiff-Appellee received for the initial ruling on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the issues on appeal are narrower than those the district court addressed and have largely been briefed by the parties, and the parties are well represented with sufficient counsel to brief the issues under the schedule Defendants-Appellants have proposed.
Arizona's Governor requested the following appeal schedule: opening brief due 8/12/2010, response brief due 8/26/2010, reply brief due 9/2/2010 and oral argument during week of September 13, basically a 30 day schedule, almost twice the schedule allowed for the original motion for preliminary injunction.[21]
On July 30, 2010, the Appeals Court ordered the following appeal schedule:
On November 1, 2010 The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard arguments in the case. The three-judge panel was composed of Judges Richard Paez, Carlos Bea, and John T. Noonan. The Court's opinion, released on April 11, 2011 and authored by Judge Paez, upheld Judge Bolton's ruling that some of the provisions found in the controversial S.B. 1070 were unconstitutional. Judge Noonan authored a concurrence. Judge Bea concurred in part and dissented in part with the Court's decision. Gov. Jan Brewer has asked the United States Supreme Court to review and overturn the decision of Judge Bolton and the Ninth Circuit.
On December 12, 2011 The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to hear the case. The case has been placed on the docket for Spring 2012, amidst other powerful cases such as Florida et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, the first such case to challenge to President Barack Obama's healthcare plan.[22]