Arizona Judge strikes down papers please law

[BostonPirate]

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/07/28/azruling.pdf

theres the ruling

she has stopped the porfiling and stopped the papers part of the law....

there is very little other part of the law remaining to even try to enforce.

Of course her decision will be appealed, but for now, civil rights have won the day.

 

[BostonPirate]

actually she has put it on hold as it is obviously in conflict with federal law and standards.

NOTE that correction.

 

[BostonPirate]

well this is an answer to the Obama suit that was filed, and before the SCOTUS gets it, the court of appeals must respond, then the 9th ciircuit, then the AZ supreme, then Scotus.

and thats for every lawsuit pending.

there are many private suits filed as well. Arizona is going to have its entire govt resources tied up in the courts for years.

GOOD

on a side note: a smaller township with a similar law elsewhere was struck down today... can't find the online source on that so it is just hearsay on the tube until I do.

 

[BostonPirate]

The Court also concludes that the list of forms of
identification that could provide a presumption that a person is not an unlawfully present alien
applies only to the first sentence of Section 2(B) because the second sentence makes no
mention of unlawful presence: the second sentence states plainly that “[a]ny person who is
arrested” must have his or her immigration status determined before release. A presumption
against unlawful presence would not dispose of the requirement that immigration status be
checked because a legal permanent resident might have a valid Arizona driver’s license, but
an inquiry would still need to be made to satisfy the requirement that the person’s
“immigration status” be determined prior to release.

so there it is... and this judge can only be overturned if that basic premise of the law changes or the AZ law changes.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I find a couple of things odd...

Since Obama took office they've deported MORE illegals, they're harder on illegal immigration and have tried to deal with the issue only to be thwarted by the Republicans.

Most of the anti-immigrant fear is based on a rancher who was murdered by an immigrant but there's no proof or evidence that the murder was committed by an immigrant. None. It's just hysteria.

Local Police shouldn't be saddled with the task of enforcing federal laws... this is a very dangerous precedent if they are.

 

[BostonPirate]

its a complicated ruling as far as I can read, and it doesn't unvalidate the law, it just states that enforcement of certain aspects of it are illegal and has ordered that, therefore, they cannot be enacted.

She has yet to decide whether the entire law should be struck down. she just bought time by getting rid of the obvious porblems and now has time to further decide.

so the law isn't out of her court yet.

I think that means that since it is still in her jusridiction, no one can do much to stop her hold on enforcement of it.

 

[BostonPirate]

the white house has announced that it will not be making any further statements on the topic and leave the admin's response to the AG Holder.

smart political move on Obama's part.

 

[BostonPirate]

the United States has demonstrated that it is likely to succeed on its
claim that the mandatory immigration verification upon arrest requirement contained in
Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070 is preempted by federal law.

here is another snip of the ruling that explains the thinking of the judge.

Johann.. why do you have to categorize yourself as a leftie? I have noticed you are a free thinker who really does examine each issue on its merits.

have you ever considered changing your voter registration to independent or non afiliiiated?

 

[MoltenRock III]

I find a couple of things odd...

Since Obama took office they've deported MORE illegals, they're harder on illegal immigration and have tried to deal with the issue only to be thwarted by the Republicans.

Most of the anti-immigrant fear is based on a rancher who was murdered by an immigrant but there's no proof or evidence that the murder was committed by an immigrant. None. It's just hysteria.

Local Police shouldn't be saddled with the task of enforcing federal laws... this is a very dangerous precedent if they are.

Correct me if I'm wrong, as I've been in Singapore for a few months and don't pay much attention to US politics while I'm gone, but wasn't it found that the dude was killed by an American criminal not an illegal immigrant?

 

[rareboy]

In the former Soviet Bloc, all entrants were required to show their papers; racism had nothing to do with it. Those without papers were immediately arrested.

You're fucking kidding me right?

It is just because the US should not turn into the Soviet Bloc that the demand of papers based on racial profiling must not be allowed.

What will the neighbours think?

 

[BostonPirate]

heres another interesting reason the judge gives for her action....

The current federal alien registration requirements create an integrated and
comprehensive system of registration. See id. (finding that the Alien Registration Act, the
precursor to the current alien registration scheme, created a “single integrated and allembracing
system” of registration); 8 U.S.C. §§ 1201, 1301-06 (providing federal registration
requirements and penalties). While the Supreme Court rejected the possibility that the INA
is so comprehensive that it leaves no room for state action that impacts aliens, De Canas, 424
U.S. at 358, the Supreme Court has also evaluated the impact of the comprehensive federal
alien registration scheme and determined that the complete scheme of registration precludes
states from conflicting with or complementing the federal law. Hines, 312 U.S. at 66-67.

so the arguement of federal supremacy has been held up in this court.

 

[palemale]

well this is an answer to the Obama suit that was filed, and before the SCOTUS gets it, the court of appeals must respond, then the 9th ciircuit, then the AZ supreme, then Scotus.

There are only two levels of appeals in federal courts. After the district court rules (i.e. the lowest court), the losing party may appeal to the Circuit Court of Appeals, then to the SCOTUS. Losing parties at the Court of Appeals level, where cases are heard by three judge panels, may also make an en banc appeal, which means an appeal to a panel consisting of every judge in the Circuit, but those are rare and don't necessarily entail a full appeal with briefing and arguments.

The judge struck down portions of the law on preemption grounds, i.e. that the state law is preempted by the federal law. I did not read the decision yet, but would be surprised if it were reversed. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City, earlier this week, struck down a New York City rule that forced taxi owners to purchase only hybrid taxis. Without getting into details, the City rule gave hybrid taxi owners financial advantages and imposed financial disincentives on non-hybrid taxi owners. The Court held that the NYC rules were preempted because they impermissibly attempted to regulate fuel efficiency and emissions standards. http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ort-to-create-hybrid-taxi-fleet/?ref=nyregion

 

[BostonPirate]

thanks for clarification palemale...

I have read through most of the ruling and clearly the judge is harsh in drawing a line that states cannot create laws that conflict with any aspect of federal statutes, no matter now minor.

will this be the continuing theme on this case, in your opinion?

 

[palemale]

thanks for clarification palemale...

I have read through most of the ruling and clearly the judge is harsh in drawing a line that states cannot create laws that conflict with any aspect of federal statutes, no matter now minor.

will this be the continuing theme on this case, in your opinion?

It's the entire basis of the federal government's case. Absent preemption, there would be no federal case.

 

[BostonPirate]

It's the entire basis of the federal government's case. Absent preemption, there would be no federal case.

and without the action of trying to preempt federal law, there would be no arizona law on immigration.

well it seems to be over before it started. I saw Mr Turley on the tube and he just said that supreme courts really only get involved if courts rule on cased in different ways.

was he right in that respect? and if so, what does that hold for this legislation?

 

[palemale]

and without the action of trying to preempt federal law, there would be no arizona law on immigration.

well it seems to be over before it started. I saw Mr Turley on the tube and he just said that supreme courts really only get involved if courts rule on cased in different ways.

was he right in that respect? and if so, what does that hold for this legislation?

The most common way for cases to make it to the Supreme Court is when there is a split among the Circuit Courts. In other words, if the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in NYC established a different interpretation of a law in a case than the 7th Circuit in Chicago ruled, there would be a split in the Circuit Courts. It doesn't guarantee a trip to the SCOTUS, though. Some federal laws are applied differently in different parts of the country.

It also is not the only way a case reaches the SCOTUS, just the most common way.

 

[hotatlboi]

good decision. hope it stands

 

[grantt]

No surprize. This one is going to the Supreme Court. I wonder if security has been stepped up to prevent one of them from "suddenly dying".

 

[construct]

and without the action of trying to preempt federal law, there would be no arizona law on immigration.

well it seems to be over before it started. I saw Mr Turley on the tube and he just said that supreme courts really only get involved if courts rule on cased in different ways.

was he right in that respect? and if so, what does that hold for this legislation?

This is a ruling on a motion for a preliminary injunction. It just keeps the state from enforcing some of the provisions of the bill until after the case is tried.

It's a little bit early to be considering what the Supreme Court will do. One factor which would favor a case being accepted by the Supreme Court would be conflicting opinions among the Circuit Courts, but there are others as well. Sometimes they accept a case because they want to take the opportunity to clarify some particular point of law. For example, if they wanted to further refine (or change) just how comprehensive the federal law must be in order for it to preempt state law, they might accept a case in which that was an issue.



Edit to add: Ah, I see palemale has already answered the question while I was putting words together. Good.

 

[CowboyBob]

Immigrants, whether illegal or not, are the current group of people targeted as a political football now. Nothing unites one group of people more than hatred and animosity towards another group or people.

Beware of:

Those Godless Indian savages
Blacks
Godless Communists
Welfare Mothers
Homosexuals
Those Muslims and their mosque building
Immigrants without documentation, now labeled as "illegals"

Did the Native Americans deport Europeans when they came here?

I'm glad the "Ihre Papiere, bitte" law is struck down. Of course it's heading to the Supreme Court.