Federal Judge Puts Arizona Immigration Law on Hold

From The Wall Street Journal:

A federal judge blocked key sections of Arizona's tough new immigration law on Wednesday, granting the Obama administration's request for an injunction based on the belief that immigration matters are the purview of the federal government.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton agreed to enjoin several provisions, including one that required police officers to check the immigration status of a person stopped for an alleged other violation, such as speeding, if reasonable suspicion existed that the individual was illegally in the U.S.

Watch Reason.tv's Nick Gillespie debate the Arizona law with its author on Stossel below:

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    I'll be interested to read her reasoning, especially on her ruling that AZ can't require immigrants to carry papers proving their legal residency, but the US can.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The ruling says AZ can't call it a crime.

  • .||

    Apparently it all hinges on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

  • ||

    It's not up to AZ to make a law requiring it. But the funny thing is they don't need a law to allow cops to do it. But AZ thinks they need a law to force their officers to check else face punishment.

  • ||

    So, if AZ can't require immigrants to carry papers because the US already has a law on the books for that,

    Does that mean AZ can't prohibit anyone from smoking pot, because the US already has a law on the books for that?

  • ||

    Can a state write law on when a Ham radio operator must carry their federal license if the US already has the law on the books?

    It's not about duplication a law, but whether a state can apply a state penalty to failure to produce federal paperwork.

  • ||

    Dual sovereignty. The state can properly apply a penalty to something that is both a federal and a state crime. They do it all the time. Drug laws being the best example.

  • ||

    Yes, John, just as Justice Kennedy opined in his Lopez concurring opinion. I think his statement was something to the effect that the framers thought that dual sovereignty provided a better structure for the protection of individual liberty.

  • ||

    Show me where drug laws are part of the Constitution. The paperwork in question is not state issued and goes directly to naturalization.

  • ||

    The paperwork in question is not state issued and goes directly to naturalization.

    It actually has nothing to do with naturalization (becoming a citizen). It has only to do with residency.

  • ||

    ""It has only to do with residency.""

    Ok, but it's still federal authorization and paperwork.

    So answer my question, can a state make rules regarding a federally issued Ham license?

  • ||

    Sure they could ask you to present it, but can the state make it a state crime for you failing to do so?

  • ||

    I would think that AZ can require cops to ask for green cards during a stop. But by policy, not law and their can't not be a penalty for the cop not doing so.

    It's not as if AZ is actually forbidden to ask. I'm pretty sure the feds are allowing them to do so. If you have a green card, you are required to have it on your person at all times. A cop in AZ asking for it isn't a big deal, it's what happens next if a. the cop doesn't want to ask, b. the person can't present one. It's the what AZ wants to do next that's the problem.

  • ||

    Oops

    But by policy, not law and their can't not be a penalty for the cop not doing so.

  • ||

    Wait, why can't there be a penalty? What's the point of a policy if the officers aren't required to abide by it?

  • slayer of cheese||

    Wait, does this mean California's auto emissions regulations are unconstitutional?

  • qwerty||

    I doubt she has any reasoning, beyond the fact that she doesn't like the Arizona law. She is a Clinton appointee on the 9th circuit. That explains everything we need to know.

  • .||

    I think you're right.

  • Alice Bowie||

    The major complaint I have is that it increases LEGAL CONTACT to certain people. That is what the law was intended to do. And I don't like it.

    BTW, New York City's STOP-AND-FRISK policy is EVEN WORST than this and should be struck-down. This is EXCLUSIVELY done to blacks/latinos.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Are their other "matters are the purview of the federal government" that are required of local cops? Meaning, are there other things the feds can tell a local cop to do, and the local government can't interfere with?

    Just wondering how this will play out. Seems like a camel's nose to me.

  • ||

    According to Gonzalez v Raich, marijuana possession is interstate commerce and thus subject to regulation by the federal government. So I guess this ruling struck down every state drug law in the country.

  • Law Student||

    This was just a hearing to determine if the state has a strong enough case to pursue the lawsuit (and put an injunction on enforcement of the law in the mean time). No law, including this one, has been overturned yet. Further even when the court case is concluded its likely to all the way to the supreme court.

  • ||

    Thank you. Given the relatively liberal standard in the 9th Circuit for granting an injunction and the stakes involved, this ruling was almost inevitable unless Judge Bolton thought the Feds had no chance of prevailing. I don't think the ruling necessarily means that the government will ultimately win, but it probably suggests that the balance is tipping at least slightly in the feds' favor.

  • Suki||

    +1

  • ||

    Somewhat off topic-

    Kudos for your well reasoned preference for the american rule over the english rule regarding attorney's fees.

  • ||

    My post was meant for Tulpa.

  • ||

    Thank you mike. I will take a pin out of your voodoo doll for that nice compliment. Do you prefer the knee or the gall bladder pin to be taken out?

  • Eleven words or less||

    I wonder, legally and constitutionally, how this could work. Is it possible that the feds could grant enforcement powers to the states through legislation in some cases (eg, drug prohibition), but forbid state enforcement in others (eg, immigration)? And would that be constitutional?

  • Zeb||

    The feds don't have to grant states powers to make drugs illegal. They both have jurisdiction (according to bad case law), so they can both make whatever laws they want on the subject (they don't even have to agree, see medical marijuana). The argument here is that immigration is an issue over which only the feds have jurisdiction, according to the constitution.

  • Jeffersonian||

    Except the Constitution doesn't say that.

  • ||

    You be right.

  • ||

    The same section of Article I grants federal power over naturalization AND interstate commerce, so it's kind of hard to say the feds have sole jurisdiction over one and not the other.

  • The Other Kevin||

    A lot of you are bringing up the same question I had. Are we saying the feds want some of their laws enforced by local cops, but not others? Because if the feds here are saying, "It's not up to local law enforcement to enforce federal laws", does that mean local law enforcement can choose to leave all drug raids to the DEA?

  • ||

    Actually, they could under current law.

    The analogue of the administration's position here is that local LEOs would be forbidden from enforcing drug laws, not merely free not to enforce them.

  • ||

    In other legal news, apparently the SEC believes that the new FinReg law exempts it from basically all FOIA requests.

    Also, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Chipotle can't let some people watch their food being made if wheelchair people couldn't see it, because it discriminates and they miss out on part of the essential Chipotle experience that way.

  • ||

    Yeah, we have that on another thread.

    I'm curious who gets to define what the experience is or should be?

    Can the blind sue Hooters for not getting the Hooters experience?

    Stupid ruling.

  • ||

    Apparently the guy who filed the lawsuit is a serial filer, who files just to win cash payments. The district court noted that in its ruling, saying that he's sued over twenty establishments, and never set foot in any of them (save one) again after winning his lawsuits. But so it goes.

  • ||

    I figured so.

    Hopfully SCOTUS will dismiss.

  • ||

    California has a statute specifically designed to deter frivoulous frequent filers. Its commonly referred to as the "vexatious litigant statute". It stands to reason that if this guy has filed a lot of meritless lawsuits that at least one of the defendants along the way might have had counsel conversant with the vexatious lititgant statute.

  • ||

    They did. The initial court ruling cited that and his filings; the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided to overturn those findings of fact.

  • kilroy||

    They should let the blind feel the Hooters. It's Braille boobies!

  • Karl||

    I foresee growth potential in the dark glasses and walking cane industries. Invest now.
    -K

  • Zeb||

    Why would you want to feel an owl?

  • z||

    They should be allowed to feel the Hooters experience with their hands.

  • Zeb||

    The main problem with the law to my mind is the "reasonable suspicion" part. Somehow I don't think that there will be a lot of cops finding reasonable suspicion to ask a lot of nicely dressed white people for their papers in case they are Canadians here illegally.

    The other big problem I see is that if they find "reasonable suspicion" to ask someone for papers, but they are not here illegally and are not required to carry papers, what then? There are US citizens whose first language is not English. US Citizens are not and damn well should not be required to carry identification. Laws like this would impose a de facto papers requirement on anyone who might seem suspiciously un-American to cop on the street.

    This is why I would have injoined (is that the right word?) against this law going into effect.

  • ||

    ""US Citizens are not and damn well should not be required to carry identification. ""

    But that's what this effort will ulitmately produce. Because you can't prove if someone is illegal. It's trying to prove a negative. But you can prove you are legal, which is the expectation. You must prove you are legal or else. That a fast ticket to a national ID.

  • Zeb||

    As good a reason to oppose this as any.

  • ||

    Explain what's wrong with a national ID again.

    Beyond horror at the phrase "your papers, please".

  • ||

    Because, in theory, as a citizen of a free country I have the right to exist unmolested as long as I am minding my own business.
    If I am required to carry a National ID proving my identity I can, (also in theory,) be required to present it on demand to any lawful authority.
    Continuing down the slippery slope, I can then be stopped at any time by a police officer and "I forgot my wallet" becomes a fineable (or arrestable) offense.
    There is a reason "your papers, please" conjures up boogeymen in the imagination. It has been used as a tool to monitor and control the citizenry by some of the worst regimes in history.
    As someone who is a lot more afraid of my own government than any amount of "furriners" I am vehemently opposed to any National ID plan.

  • ||

    As for your first issue, that's because the US does not have tens of millions of illegal white Canadian immigrants causing various social problems. Setting aside the issue of the legality of prostitution, it's kind of like complaining that police discriminate against urban women by busting hookers hanging out on downtown street corners, while ignoring women hanging out in suburban shopping malls.

  • fyodor||

    I've long said there's nothing wrong with racial profiling per se, just with the criminalization of victimless actions that makes racial profiling a useful, maybe even necessary, policing tool.

    Oh, and the fact that racial profiling is palpably noxious to most folks just dramatizes what's wrong with victimless crimes.

  • ||

    Zeb, enjoined.

  • Ska||

    I've read this headline as Federal Judge Putz at least three times now.

    No, it's not substantive, it's just a comment.

  • Caleb||

    This is preposterous. There is simply no way that a guy sporting that head of hair has an absolutely hairless chest. I truly admire Nick Gillespie for all of his reporting, but the manscaping that must be necessary to pull off that v-neck must truly compromise his ability to forward the cause of liberty.

  • Disco Stu||

    I had two flatmates with full heads of hair and hairless chests, and there was no pruning on their part. It happens, and it's the biggest injustice out there that has yet to be properly addressed by the O administration.

  • mmm||

    Nick keeps getting hotter and hotter.

  • ||

    “I wished they hadn’t passed it,” Bush strategist Karl Rove told a crowd of 500 at a senior community center in Florida. “I think there is going to be some constitutional problems with the bill….At the end of the day,” he said, “I think there are better tools.”

    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/s.....z0v0qVDXHA

  • ||

    Watched the video. One of my basic AZ political philosophies: If Russell Pearce (or Joe Arpaio) supports it I'm against it. This video confirms the wisdom of that rule.

    Here's a key conundrom from the Judge's ruling:

    Bolton let the part of SB 1070 that requires agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent of the law to stand, but enjoined the part about allowing officers to question an individual's legal status.

  • ||

    Bolton let the part of SB 1070 that requires agencies to enforce federal immigration law to the fullest extent of the law to stand,

    Thanks for clarifying that. The judge just about had to.

    but enjoined the part about allowing officers to question an individual's legal status.

    Weird. The feds can question your legal status based on reasonable suspicion, and ask you to produce paperwork, so that can't be unconstitutional. I wonder why she prohibited the state from doing so? In advance?

  • ||

    "" wonder why she prohibited the state from doing so? In advance?""

    In the context of state law demanding such, right.

    The issue might be the difference between can ask, or being sued for not asking.

    Can or should a cop lose immunity for not enforcing a specific law?

  • J||

    I don't doubt that a lot of people in AZ felt this law was necessary. I don't live near the border, I don't know what it's like.

    However, those of you that drafted and/or supported this bill, you have opened up a can of worms that is going to get ugly, while it is not going to be effective against illegal immigration.

    You've given an emasculated Obama a chance to do a "smackdown" on this bill in an attempt to look effective and assert his authority.

    You've increased the likelihood of another major, bloated bill that allows for regulatory agencies to breathe down the necks of those trying to run a business, national ID cards complete with tracking devices, and god knows what else.

    You've given police more cause to snoop where they really don't need to be.

    If you think those are worthy prices to pay for stopping illegal immigration, that is a point of view. However, since you can't stop this, as with everything, when millions of people want to do something they find a way.

    Perhaps those of you dead set of stopping illegal immigration should support high taxes across the board. After all, they will slow the economy and hiring, which will mean fewer people try to come here. If the above are worthy price to pay, perhaps this is, too.

    But, for the love of Christ, don't legalize drugs. We can win this war!

  • Libertarian douche||

    I agree with y'all on taxes and stuff, but where I nobly depart from the standard platform in order to demonstrate my open-mindedness is that I think all Mexicans should be imprisoned if they can't recite the declaration of independence word-for-word.

  • J||

    How about Americans who can't recite the declaration of independence word for word?

  • ||

    I believe Troll douche would have been a more accurate moniker.

  • ||

    One of the judge's concerns is that the federal government not become "overburdened" by requests for confirmation of immigrant status by Arizona law enforcement. Seriously.

    And since when do the powers that be concern themselves that we ordinary, law-abiding citizens will be "inconvenienced" by the laws foisted on us. If only.

  • ||

    I'd like to avoid overburdening the federal government, too, so can I skip filing my taxes?

  • ||

    I've lived in Mesa for 10 years and before that in Tucson. Russell Pearce is a one-issue politician whose time has come, though he's been doggedly pursuing the same issue ever since he was first elected.
    Jan Brewer was appointed when Janet Napolitano moved to DC, and up until she got on the SB1070 bandwagon was perceived as a weak governor. Not coincidently she's up for re-election in Nov. Joe Arpaio is a loathsome slug (I believe that's an anatomically correct description) who is well-known for bogus "crime sweeps" that just happen to focus on predominantly Hispanic area.
    Pretty much sums it up IMHO.

  • MWG||

    I live in Mesa as well and what you said accurately sums up the situation.

    I will go further and say that I have a friend who is good friends with an immigration attorney heavily involved in state politics and the GOP who helped write SB 1070 in its final form. He describes Pearce as one of the most racist SOBs in AZ politics.

  • I'm in your fucking face!||

    Hey dipshits. Got proof?

  • Max||

    Where does Gillespie buy his hair dye? Has he considered botox?

  • Obummer||

    Have you considered ExLax, Max? I recommend ExLaxMax, Max.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement