Supreme Court hints OK on part of Arizona immigration law
BY MARK SHERMAN Associated Press
Thursday, April 26, 2012
4/26/12 at 4:43 AM
Bucking the Obama administration, Supreme Court justices seemed to find little trouble Wednesday with major parts of Arizona's tough immigration law that require police to check the legal status of people they stop for other reasons.
But the fate of other provisions that make Arizona state crimes out of immigration violations was unclear in the court's final argument of the term.
The latest clash between states and the administration turns on the extent of individual states' roles in dealing with the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. Immigration policy is essentially under the federal government's control, but a half-dozen Republican-dominated states have passed their own restrictions.
Parts of laws adopted by Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah also are on hold pending the high court's decision, which is expected in late June.
Civil rights groups say the Arizona law and those in some other states encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping, and debate over such laws could have an impact on this fall's elections. More than 200 protesters gathered outside the court.
However, in an unusual comment, Chief Justice John Roberts made clear at the outset of the administration's argument Wednesday that the court was looking only at state-versus-federal power, not the civil rights concerns that already are the subject of other lawsuits. "So this is not a case about ethnic profiling," Roberts said.
That matter dealt with, both liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without warrants, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr.
Verrilli tried to convince the justices that they should view the law in its entirety, and as inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of immigrants lacking documentation.
He said the law embodying Arizona's approach of maximum enforcement conflicts with a more nuanced federal immigration policy that seeks to balance national security, law enforcement, foreign policy, human rights and the rights of law-abiding citizens and immigrants.
The other provisions put on hold by lower federal courts make it a state crime for immigrants not to have registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold jobs.
Arguing for Arizona, Paul Clement said the state law mirrored federal immigration law and that the state it took action because, with its 370-mile border with Mexico, Arizona "bears a disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration."
Alone among the justices, Antonin Scalia appeared ready to uphold the entire law, which he described as an effort by Arizona to police its borders.
Justice Elena Kagan, who was Obama's first solicitor general, is not taking part in the case, presumably because she worked on it while in the Justice Department.
Original Print Headline: Court hears immigration case
Associated Images:
Coelis Mendoza (left) from Ithaca, N.Y., who is opposed to Arizona's immigration law, argues with Marietta Barbier Falzgraf of Bethesda, Md., a supporter, outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday during a hearing on Arizona's immigration law. CHARLES DHARAPAK/AP
|
