SCOTUS and immigration
Here is the text of the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona et al. v. United States. My initial take is that this is devastating for those who support restrictive state laws. Everything is struck down except for status checks, more popularly known as "papers please." Even that, though, has a caveat:
Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect.
So expect more lawsuits. Arizona Governor Jan Brewer calls that victory, but I doubt she really believes that. Despite all the rumors that the court seemed sympathetic to Arizona, this decision says that Arizona overstepped its constitutional bounds by a lot. Every state that copied SB 1070 will have to go back to the drawing board.
For North Carolina, where I live, I would guess this means the legislature will not move forward because the legislative leadership was waiting for a SCOTUS ruling before doing anything.
3 comments:
Jan Brewer needs some serious reality check.
My wife is a naturalized US citizen who speaks English with an accent. If we're stopped in Arizona and she doesn't have ID with her, does she run the risk of being detained or deported? If so, is the state of Arizona then adding a burden to naturalized citizens (who, I hasten to add, attain their citizenship through swearing allegiance to the US as opposed to the rest of it who got it through an accident of birth) that native born citizens don't have>
The answer is she could potentially be detained. That's why it will be challenged immediately--SCOTUS just said state courts hadn't ruled sufficiently on it yet, and the ACLU already has a war chest.
Post a Comment