The State of Arizona has filed its opposition to the lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice seeking an injunction preventing Arizona S.B. 1070 from taking effect on July 29.
The hearing on the motion for preliminary injunction is set for July 22 at 1:30 p.m.
Here is the introduction to the opposition:
Janice K. Brewer (“Governor Brewer”) and the State of Arizona oppose plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (doc. 27), which seeks to enjoin enforcement of the “Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act,” as amended (“SB 1070” or the “Act”). SB 1070 is Arizona’s legitimate and constitutionally permissible response to the crushing personal, environmental, criminal, and financial burdens thrust upon the State as a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of comprehensive enforcement activity by the federal government and certain Arizona “sanctuary” cities. The Arizona Legislature enacted SB 1070 primarily to require that Arizona’s law enforcement officers cooperate in the enforcement of federal immigration laws and, pursuant to the State’s broad police powers, to establish state crimes that mirror existing federal laws.
Plaintiff seeks to enjoin SB 1070 as facially unconstitutional. Plaintiff’s claims find no support in the Constitution or federal law and, in many instances, contravene express congressional intent. Plaintiff bears a heavy burden of establishing that Sections 2 through 6 of SB 1070 are unconstitutional in all of their applications, that plaintiff will be irreparably harmed if the law is not enjoined, and that plaintiff’s interests in enjoining Sections 2 through 6 outweigh Arizona’s interests in having SB 1070 implemented. [fn1 – Plaintiff asks the Court to enjoin SB 1070, but plaintiff’s Motion addresses only the bases upon which plaintiff believes the Court should enjoin Sections 2 through 6.] Plaintiff attempts to meet this burden by relying on faulty premises and inapposite case law. Plaintiff will not suffer any harm, much less irreparable harm, if SB 1070 is implemented because the Act requires only that Arizona’s law enforcement officers act in accordance with their constitutional authority and congressionally established federal policy. Plaintiff is not entitled to an injunction.
U.S. v. Arizona – State of Arizona Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://d1.scribdassets.com/ScribdViewer.swf
——————————————–
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How tragic and outrageous it is – in this time of a long war, monstrous debt, crumbling economy, border violence, swarms of illegal immigrants, rising unemployment, increased taxes and mandates – that citizens are under attack, with their own tax dollars, from a repressive and punitive federal gub'mint – instead of that very gub'mint uniting us against these ills which plague our nation.
A fish truly does rot from the head down.