Appeals Court Rules Against Arizona Immigration Law

[jimmy olsen]

Excellent.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/12/us/12arizona.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Appeals Court Rules Against Arizona Law
By MARC LACEY
Published: April 11, 2011

PHOENIX — The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled against the State of Arizona on Monday and let stand a lower court decision blocking the most contentious parts of the state's immigration law from going into effect.

The decision calling the provisions unconstitutional was a victory for the Obama administration, which argued that the law interfered with the federal government's authority over immigration. Two judges ruled against Arizona, and one dissented in part from them.

Last July, just days before the law was to take effect, Judge Susan Bolton of Federal District Court issued an injunction blocking parts of it. Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who supports the crackdown on immigrants, filed an appeal seeking to have the injunction lifted.

After the appeals court rejected the state's request on Monday and issued a lengthy decision indicating that it believed the state had overstepped its authority, State Senator Russell K. Pearce, a Republican who is the principal sponsor of the law, remained defiant, saying the issue would ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court.

"This battle is a battle of epic proportions," Mr. Pearce said in a statement suggesting he was not surprised by the ruling. "It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

Ms. Brewer and the Arizona attorney general, Tom Horne, also vowed to keep fighting for the law. "I believe the Ninth Circuit decision will be overturned by the United States Supreme Court, and I pledge to make every possible effort to achieve that result," Mr. Horne said.

Critics of the law, who have held protests and filed lawsuits to strike it down, were thrilled with the ruling.

"One of the reasons we have a judiciary is so that mobs don't rule, so that when the Legislature oversteps its bounds there is someone to stop them," said Omar Jadwat of the A.C.L.U. Immigrants' Rights Project.

It was not immediately clear how the state would proceed. It could appeal the decision to the full Ninth Circuit, or it could immediately appeal to the Supreme Court. The state could also hold off on appealing and return to the Federal District Court in Phoenix, where Judge Bolton continues to oversee challenges to the law.

"In upholding Judge Bolton's decision, the Ninth Circuit has signaled, in a loud and clear voice, that Arizona's effort to regulate immigration law and policy directly violates the Constitution and will not stand," said David Leopold, president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.

The decision will be closely watched in several states that are considering similar laws of their own. The Georgia Senate was set to debate the matter on Monday, and another bill appeared on the move in Alabama.

Other states, including Mississippi and Kansas, watered down or abandoned tough bills to avoid the litigation and protests that Arizona faced. After lawmakers in Utah concluded that the administration's challenge to Arizona was likely to prevail, they took a different tack. They voted for a milder enforcement bill, but also voted to create a guest worker program for illegal immigrants.

Backers of the Arizona law said they were pleased with disagreements among the appeals court judges. Judge Carlos Bea issued a partial dissent in which he criticized the majority's argument by quoting from Lewis Carroll's "Alice in Wonderland."

The law would have required the police to question people about their immigration status if they had been stopped for other matters and if the officers found reasonable suspicion that they were illegal immigrants. Critics said that was an invitation to racial profiling.

Also challenged were provisions requiring immigrants to carry their papers and making it a violation for illegal immigrants to work or look for work.

Julia Preston contributed reporting from Princeton, N.J.

[Valmy]

“This battle is a battle of epic proportions,” Mr. Pearce said in a statement suggesting he was not surprised by the ruling. “It is about a state’s right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws.”

Yes that is the issue: the courts want people to break the law.

[Neil]

"This battle is a battle of epic proportions," Mr. Pearce said in a statement suggesting he was not surprised by the ruling. "It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

Yes that is the issue: the courts want people to break the law.

Not so much that they want people to break the law.  They just aren't eager to see the law enforced.

[derspiess]

Excellent.

edit:  oh, and-- 9th Circus Strikes Again!

[grumbler]

"This battle is a battle of epic proportions," Mr. Pearce said in a statement suggesting he was not surprised by the ruling. "It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

Yes that is the issue: the courts want people to break the law.

Whenever anyone starts to talk about "states' rights," there is no need to listen on.

[HVC]

Whenever anyone starts to talk about "states' rights," there is no need to listen on.

don't be too casual. Last time you tried to deny states the right to mistreat dark skinned minorities a little civil work broke out

[The Minsky Moment]

Whenever anyone starts to talk about "states' rights," there is no need to listen on.

That goes double when the "right" in question is the state's right to enforce federal law in manner opposed by the federal government.

[Slargos]

"This battle is a battle of epic proportions," Mr. Pearce said in a statement suggesting he was not surprised by the ruling. "It is about a state's right to enforce the laws of this land and protect its citizens from those who break our laws."

Yes that is the issue: the courts want people to break the law.

Whenever anyone starts to talk about "states' rights," there is no need to listen on.

[CountDeMoney]

In totally unrelated news...

Maryland's Democratic General Assembly passed a pair of historic — and divisive — measures in the final hours of the 2011 legislative session Monday night, increasing the tax on alcohol for the first time in more than a generation and making Maryland the 11th state to extend in-state college tuition breaks to illegal immigrants.

Gov. Martin O'Malley, a Democrat, has said he approves of both plans; his first round of bill signings is set for Tuesday.

Beginning July 1, the sales tax for beer, wine and spirits would jump from 6 percent to 9 percent, raising an estimated $85 million per year. Lawmakers chose to dedicate the funds to school construction and aid to Baltimore and Prince George's County, as well as to programs for the developmentally disabled.

The in-state tuition proposal would enable undocumented students who have attended Maryland high schools for at least three years, and whose families pay state taxes, to pay in-state tuition rates at community college. After completing 60 credit hours — the equivalent of two years of full-time study — a student could transfer to a four-year state college for the in-state rate.

Too funny.  Illegals get in-state tuition rate breaks to go to college in order to increase their chances of getting a job, which they can't get because it's against the law to hire illegal immigrants.   

[Admiral Yi]

How many illegal immigrants have parents who pay state taxes?

[derspiess]

How many illegal immigrants have parents who pay state taxes?

I'm sure there are some.  They probably pay federal taxes as well--  using someone else's social security number.

[derspiess]

Too funny.  Illegals get in-state tuition rate breaks to go to college in order to increase their chances of getting a job, which they can't get because it's against the law to hire illegal immigrants.  

You should like this since it pisses off the conservitards.

You guys'll be letting illegals vote in a few years, which means more Democrat votes.  Another win for you.

[CountDeMoney]

Too funny.  Illegals get in-state tuition rate breaks to go to college in order to increase their chances of getting a job, which they can't get because it's against the law to hire illegal immigrants.   

You should like this since it pisses off the conservitards.

You guys'll be letting illegals vote in a few years, which means more Democrat votes.  Another win for you.

Doesn't bother me, I've got my degree.
And I'll take a well-motivated wetback*, illegal or not, in the classroom busting his ass than some spoiled stoner going through the motions.




*Except Timmay. Fuck that nigger.

[derspiess]

Doesn't bother me, I've got my degree.
And I'll take a well-motivated wetback*, illegal or not, in the classroom busting his ass than some spoiled stoner going through the motions.

A fair point.  Btw, did you ever buy that Tivo Premiere you were talking about a few weeks ago?  I broke down & bought one last night