On December 12, 2011, the United States Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether Arizona can enforce its controversial immigration law, over the strong objections of the Obama Administration.
The case, known as Arizona v. U.S. (11-182), is likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court in April 2012, and the decision can be made by July 2012, according to media reports. The Arizona appeal could set crucial precedent on similar laws pending across the country, effectively deciding the fate of the Obama Administration’s fight to overturn tough state immigration laws passed in Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Utah, and South Carolina, in addition to Arizona.
Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan will not hear the case, presumably because she had been involved in the administration's initial legal opposition to the law as solicitor general, before joining the Supreme Court in 2010. The possibility of a 4-4 split between the remaining eight Supreme Court Justices would prevent the controversial provisions of the law from going into effect, but not settle the larger constitutional questions.
The Arizona immigration law, known as SB 1070, was signed by Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer in April 2010. It was designed to give police the power to question anyone who they have a “reasonable suspicion” is an illegal immigrant. In July 2010, the Obama administration sued Arizona over the law, saying that it conflicts with federal law, would disrupt immigration enforcement, and would lead to racial profiling and police harassment of those who cannot prove their lawful status. In April 2011, a federal appeals court in San Francisco upheld a lower court’s decision that the most contested provisions of the Arizona immigration law be blocked from taking effect.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer asked the Supreme Court to take up the case, seeking to begin to fully enforce the law, including its most contested provisions: requiring all immigrants to carry immigration registration papers; making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job; and allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant. Arizona state officials have argued that the federal government is not doing enough to address illegal immigration and that border states such as Arizona, which has a 370-mile border with Mexico, are suffering disproportionately.
The Supreme Court may have to decide whether states can regulate immigration independently of the federal government, or if regulating immigration is the job of the federal government only. The April 2011 decision of the appellate court largely sided with the Justice Department on the argument that federal immigration policy – as well as America's standing in the world – would be greatly undermined if individual states adopted their own separate immigration laws. Doing so, the ruling said, essentially means that a given state is adopting its own foreign policy, which may be in opposition to national policy.
Attorneys at I.S. Law Firm have helped many immigrants to avoid deportation and legalize their status in the United States. To explore your immigration options, please contact us at 703-527-1779 or by e-mail: law@islawfirm.com.
