Federal Judge Blocks Part of AZ Immigration Law: Up Date x 3

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has placed an injunction some of the most controversial parts of the Arizona Immigration Law stating that they are likely to be held unconstitutional. The judge has blocked sections that

– Require a police officer to make a reasonable attempt to check the immigration status of those they have stopped;

– Making it a violation of Arizona law for anyone not a citizen to fail to carry documentation;

– Creating a new state crime for trying to secure work while not a legal resident;

– Allowing police to make warrantless arrests if there is a belief the person has committed an offense that allows them to be removed from the United States.

“There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens under the new (law),” Bolton ruled. “By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose a ‘distinct, unusual and extraordinary’ burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose.”

Judge Bolton ruled only on the lawsuit brought by the Justice Department. There are seven other lawsuits.

Here is the link via Scribd to the ruling.

h/t to TPM and AMERICA blog

Up Date: Judge Bolton’s decision is based on the the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The Supremacy Clause is a clause in the United States Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. This clause asserts and establishes the Constitution, the federal laws made in pursuance of the Constitution, and treaties made by the United States with foreign nations as “the Supreme Law of the Land” (using modern capitalization). The text of Article VI, Clause 2, establishes these as the highest form of law in the American legal system, both in the Federal courts  and in all of the State courts, mandating that all state judges shall uphold them, even if there are state laws or state constitutions that conflict with the powers of the Federal government. (Note that the word “shall” is used here and in the language of the law, which makes it a necessity, a compulsion.)

The text of the Supremacy Clause

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

Here is Bill Egnor’s (aka Something The Dog Said), from his series at FDL: Friday Constitutional – Articles 5, 6 and 7

Article 6

Clause Two:

   

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The language of this seems a little backwards, but basically this clause is stating that the laws and treaties of the United States (what we would call Federal Law) always trumps State law. It also instructs judges that they are to follow this reasoning, with no exceptions. It is another of the ways that the Framers bound the country together. By making an overarching set of laws that must be applied everywhere, they made sure that there would be continuity between the States.

Up Date 2: This is the summary of the decision which is based on preemption of Article VI, section 2 of the US Constitution.

The summary, as written by Judge Bolton, is:

   Applying the proper legal standards based upon well-established precedent, the Court finds that the United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that the following Sections of S.B. 1070 are preempted by federal law:

   Portion of Section 2 of S.B. 1070 – A.R.S. § 11-1051(B): requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person

   Section 3 of S.B. 1070 – A.R.S. § 13-1509: creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers

   Portion of Section 5 of S.B. 1070 – A.R.S. § 13-2928(C): creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work

   Section 6 of S.B. 1070 – A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5): authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States

   The Court also finds that the United States is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the Court does not preliminarily enjoin enforcement of these Sections of S.B. 1070 and that the balance of equities tips in the United States’ favor considering the public interest. The Court therefore issues a preliminary injunction enjoining the enforcement of the portion of Section 2 creating A.R.S. § 11-1051(B), Section 3 creating A.R.S. § 13-1509, the portion of Section 5 creating A.R.S. § 13-2928(C), and Section 6 creating A.R.S. § 13-3883(A)(5).

b/t to bmaz at FDL.

Up Date 3: BigTentDemocrat (aka Armando), at TalkLeft says that Judge Bolton erred in letting one slip and that it could cause some real “mischief”:

Section 5 of S.B. 1070 also creates A.R.S. § 13-2929, which makes it illegal for a person who is in violation of a criminal offense to: (1) transport or move or attempt to transport or move an alien in Arizona in furtherance of the alien’s unlawful presence in the United States; (2) conceal, harbor, or shield or attempt to conceal, harbor, or shield an alien from detection in Arizona; and (3) encourage or induce an alien to come to or live in Arizona. A.R.S. § 13-2929(A)(1)-(3). In order to violate A.R.S. § 13-2929(A), a person must also know or recklessly disregard the fact that the alien is unlawfully present in the United States.Id. The United States asserts that this provision is preempted as an impermissible regulation of immigration and that the provision violates the dormant Commerce Clause. (Pl.’s Mot. at 44- 46.)18

   

a. Regulation of Immigration

The “[p]ower to regulate immigration is unquestionably exclusively a federal power.” De Canas, 424 U.S. at 354. The regulation of immigration is “essentially a determination of who should or should not be admitted into the country, and the conditions under which a legal entrant may remain.”Id. at 355. “[T]he fact that aliens are the subject of a state statute does not render it a regulation of immigration.”Id. The United States argues that “to the extent Section 5 is not a restriction on interstate movement, it is necessarily a restriction on unlawful entry into the United States.” (Pl.’s Mot. at 45.)

A.R.S. § 13-2929 does not attempt to regulate who should or should not be admitted into the United States, and it does not regulate the conditions under which legal entrants may remain in the United States. See De Canas, 424 U.S. at 355. Therefore, the Court concludes that the United States is not likely to succeed on its claim that A.R.S. § 13-2929 is an impermissible regulation of immigration.

 

(emphasis by BTD)