skip to main content

Listen

Read

Watch

Schedules

Programs

Events

Give

Account

Donation Heart Ribbon

Supreme Court Strikes Down Most Of Arizona Immigration Law

Evening Edition

Above: Glenn Smith, a professor at Cal Western School of Law, and Lilia Valesquez, an immigration and naturalization attorney, talk to KPBS about the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law.

Aired 6/25/12 on KPBS Midday Edition.

GUESTS:

Glenn Smith, Law professor, Cal Western School of Law

Lilia Valesquez, Immigration and Naturalization attorney, adjunct professor, Cal Western School of Law

Transcript

Supreme Court Decision Outlined

UPHELD:

— A requirement that police, while enforcing other laws, question people's immigration status if officers have reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally.

STRUCK DOWN:

— A requirement that all immigrants obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

— A provision making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.

— A provision that would allow police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

Special Feature A Brief History Of SB 1070

More stories, documents & multimedia on the controversial Arizona anti-immigration law.

Document

United States Vs. Arizona

United States Vs. Arizona

U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Arizona's crackdown on ...

The Supreme Court struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants Monday but said a much-debated portion on checking suspects' status could go forward.

The court did not throw out the state provision requiring police to check the immigration status of someone they suspect is in the United States illegally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

The decision upholds the "show me your papers" requirement for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges.

The court announced that Thursday would be the last day of rulings this term, which means the decision on President Barack Obama's landmark health care overhaul probably will come that day.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions.

Kennedy said the law could — and suggested it should — be read to avoid concerns that immigration status checks could lead to prolonged detention.

The court struck down these three major provisions: requiring all immigrants to obtain or 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 warrants.

The Obama administration sued to block the Arizona law soon after its enactment two years ago. Federal courts had refused to let the four key provisions take effect.

Five states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have adopted variations on Arizona's law. Parts of those laws also are on hold pending the outcome of the Supreme Court case.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor joined all of Kennedy's opinion.

Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas would have allowed all the challenged provisions to take effect. Justice Samuel Alito would have allowed police to arrest undocumented immigrants who seek work, and also make arrests without warrants.

Scalia, in comments from the bench, caustically described Obama's recently announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress' failure to pass the administration's proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of the Immigration Act that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind," Scalia said.

The case focused on whether states can adopt their own immigration measures to deal with an estimated 11 million illegal immigrants in the face of federal inaction on comprehensive immigration reform, or whether the federal government has almost exclusive authority in the area of immigration.

Kennedy wrote obliquely about the impasse on immigration reform at the national level.

"Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law," Kennedy said.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said in a written statement that the ruling marks a victory for people who believe in the responsibility of states to defend their residents. "The case for SB1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling," Brewer said. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual's civil rights."

Civil rights groups that separately challenged the law over concerns that it would lead to rights abuses said their lawsuit would go on.

Even with the limitations the high court put on Arizona, the immigration status check still is "an invitation to racial profiling," said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat.

Comments

Avatar for user 'Peking_Duck_SD'

Peking_Duck_SD | June 25, 2012 at 11:10 a.m. ― 2 years, 2 months ago

Governor Jan Brewer is a psychopath.

Seriously, I think she is delusional.

She is on live tv as I write this declaring victory.

Yes, the supreme court did uphold a provision of the law, but if anything there was no clear "winner" to come out of this.

But that didn't stop Jan Brewer from giving an all-out victory speech and gloating before television cameras while I suiting the President of the United States.

Reporters afterwards really started questioning her sanity.

( | suggest removal )

Avatar for user 'Missionaccomplished'

Missionaccomplished | June 25, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ― 2 years, 2 months ago

There is already a precedent for the lone provision that was upheld: Brignoni vs Ponce, 1975.

( | suggest removal )