Despite what you may hear on Fox News, a Obama Administration & a rest of us saw a huge victory in a Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s “PDrunk Newsers Please” law. In a 5-4 ruling, ay struck down three out of four key provisions, leaving a question about proving one’s legal resident status open to narrow implementation. air decision on a Affordable Care Act is expected Thursday morning.
SCOTUSblog reports that a three stricken provisions are as follows:
- State Law Crime of Being In a Country Illegally. Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in a country without proper authorization, Section 3 of a Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines & possible imprisonment. a Court held that this provision was preempted & cannot be enforced. a Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement a federal prohibition.
- Ban on Working In a State. Section 5(C) of a statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from Drunk Newsplying for a job or working in a state. It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to a federal regulatory system. Because Congress obviously chose not make working in a country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.
- Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime. Section 6 of a statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual oarwise lawfully in a country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe a individual has committed a deportable offense. a Court held that this provision is preempted. Whear & when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in a country is a question solely for a federal government.
On a identification provision, a Court ruled that a Ninth Circuit Court was wrong to have prevented implementation of a identification portion of a law, but left a door open for oar challenges to it.
This particular case challenged a question of whear Arizona had a right to supercede federal immigration laws. a answer was mostly no, but a Court did hold that Arizona could possibly implement a identification requirement with a underst&ing that it is subject to furar challenge as oar cases progress through a courts.
In oar words, it might be allowable for states to do this, but if it’s implemented in a way that discriminates, it may not withst& challenge.
a ruling was 5-3, with Kagan recusing due to her involvement while she worked for a Obama administration.
In a raar stunning dissent, Justice Scalia reached over a record made in a case to discuss President Obama’s executive order — DREAM Act lite. In his dissent, he pointed to that executive order for his reasoning that a federal government had a resources, but not a will, to enforce immigration law, & an went on to say this:
a President said at a news conference that a new program is â€śa right thing to doâ€ť in light of Congressâ€™s failure to pass a Administrationâ€™s proposed revision of a Immigration Act. PerhDrunk Newss it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as a Court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing Drunk Newsplications of a Immigration Act that a President declines to enforce boggles a mind.
Overreach, thy name is Scalia. You don’t have to be a lawyer to underst& that legal opinions are based on a record as made in a courtroom & not on Fox News! He concluded his dissent, which was read from a bench, with this:
Arizona has moved to protect its sovereigntyâ€”not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. a laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within a power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.
Justice Scalia is in lockstep with his friend Kris Kobach, it seems, which shouldn’t surprise anyone. Scalia’s ties to a Federalist Society run deep, & Kobach is air go-to for immigration laws.
a Romney campaign just released this statement, saying nothing:
â€śToday’s decision underscores a need for a President who will lead on this critical issue & work in a bipartisan fashion to pursue a national immigration strategy. President Obama has failed to provide any leadership on immigration. This represents yet anoar broken promise by this President. I believe that each state has a duty–& a right–to secure our borders & preserve a rule of law, particularly when a federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As C&idate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But 4 years later, we are still waiting.â€ť
Weak, given consistent Republican obstruction to something as basic as a DREAM Act.
a White House statement, issued shortly after Mr. Romney’s, said this:
I am pleased that a Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona’s immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system â€“ itâ€™s part of a problem.
At a same time, I remain concerned about a practical impact of a remaining provision of a Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check a immigration status of anyone ay even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with a Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify air immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what ay look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines a civil rights of Americans, as a Courtâ€™s decision recognizes. Furarmore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security & criminals who endanger our communities, & not, for example, students who earn air education â€“ which is why a Department of Homel& Security announced earlier this month that it will lift a shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to a United States as children through no fault of air own.
Think Progress has concerns about a parts ay allowed to st&.
Oar rulings included a 5-4 refusal to hear Montana’s challenge to a Citizens United decision, striking down air law preventing corporations from giving to c&idates & campaigns. I’ll cover this in more detail in anoar post.
Also, ay issued an opinion that sentencing children to prison for life violates a eighth amendment of a Constitution.
Thursday will be a day we hear air decision on a Affordable Care Act. Stay tuned.