Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Supreme Court upholds key immigration status check provision of Arizona law

Supreme Court upholds key immigration status check provision of Arizona law

The Supreme Court decided the Arizona immigration law, S.B. 1070.  Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.

The Court struck the provisions dealing with state criminal penalties and other provisions which imposed procedural requirements on illegals in the state.  Among the provisions the Court struck is the one requiring that a person be detained if the police officer believes the person is removable:

Section 6 attempts to provide state officers even greater authority to arrest aliens on the basis of possible removability than Congress has given to trained federal immigration officers. Under state law, officers who believe an alien is removable by reason of some “public offense” would have the power to conduct an arrest on that basis regardless of whether a federal warrant has issued or the alien is likely to escape. This state authority could be exercised without any input from the Federal Government about whether an arrest is warranted in a particular case. This would allow the State to achieve its own immigration policy. The result could be unnecessary harassment of some aliens (for instance, a veteran, college student, or someone assisting with a criminal investigation) whom federal officials determine should not be removed….

By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.

But the Court upheld, for now, the provision requiring a check of immigration status for persons otherwise detained.  The Court left open the possibility of additional legal challenges after the law goes into effect.  So expect more litigation.

Section 2(B) of S. B. 1070 requires state officers to make a “reasonable attempt . . . to determine the immigration status” of any person they stop, detain, or arrest on some other legitimate basis if “reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien and is unlawfully present in the United States.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §11–1051(B) (West 2012). The law also provides that “[a]ny person who is arrested shall have the person’s immigration status determined before the person is released.” Ibid. The accepted way to perform these status checks is to contact ICE,which maintains a database of immigration records….

However the law is interpreted, if §2(B) only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision likely would survive pre-emption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives….

There is a basic uncertainty about what the law means and how it will be enforced. At this stage, without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that creates a conflict with federal law….

This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect…

The United States has established that §§3, 5(C), and 6of S. B. 1070 are preempted. It was improper, however, to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that enforcement of the provision in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives.

The net-net?  The federal government did better than many expected, particularly on section 6.  I don’t think many people thought state criminal sanctions and other state requirements would survive.

Section 2(B) remains in effect for now, which politically is a lot more palatable, because the immigration status check only takes place after a lawful detention.  But there will be more litigation once the law is put into effect and applied.

Scalia dissented in part, and would have upheld the entire statute as a valid exercise of Arizona’s sovereignty:

What this case comes down to, then, is whether the Arizona law conflicts with federal immigration law—whether it excludes those whom federal law would admit, or admits those whom federal law would exclude. It does not purport to do so. It applies only to aliens who neither possess a privilege to be present under federal law nor have been removed pursuant to the Federal Government’s inherent authority….

The most important point is that, as we have discussed, Arizona is entitled to have “its own immigration policy”—including amore rigorous enforcement policy—so long as that does not conflict with federal law. The Court says, as though the point is utterly dispositive, that “it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States,” ante, at 15. It is not a federal crime, to be sure. But there is no reason Arizona cannot make it a state crime for a removable alien (or any illegal alien, for that matter) to remain present in Arizona….

Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

Thomas joined Scalia in a separate partial dissent:

I agree with JUSTICE SCALIA that federal immigration law does not pre-empt any of the challenged provisions of
S. B. 1070. I reach that conclusion, however, for the simple reason that there is no conflict between the “ordinary meanin[g]” of the relevant federal laws and that of the four provisions of Arizona law at issue here.

Alito also filed a separate partial dissent, agreeing that section 2(B) was valid and section 3 (state penalties for violating federal law) preempted.  He would have upheld the other provisions struck by the majority.

The United States’ attack on §2(B) is quite remarkable.The United States suggests that a state law may be preempted, not because it conflicts with a federal statute or regulation, but because it is inconsistent with a federal agency’s current enforcement priorities. Those priorities,however, are not law. They are nothing more than agency policy. I am aware of no decision of this Court recognizing that mere policy can have pre-emptive force….

It bears emphasizing that §6 does not mandate the warrantless apprehension of all aliens who have committed crimes for which they are removable. Instead, it only grants state and local officers permission to make such arrests. The trouble with this premature, facial challenge is that it affords Arizona no opportunity to implement its law in a way that would avoid any potential conflicts with federal law.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Not being a legal scholar, if the SCOTUS approved of the one provision, how can they “leave it open” for future [legal] challenges?

    Ragspierre in reply to Hube. | June 25, 2012 at 10:59 am

    If, in real-life application, “harm” is done to someone, then the law will be reviewed for its actual prejudicial (of rights) effect.

quiksilverz24 | June 25, 2012 at 10:46 am

FYI, no decision on obarrycare today.

As a non-legal person, would it be fairly accurate to say that SCOTUS looked carefully at identifying fed lawbreakers vs. enforcement? I.e. a State cannot usurp fed role in actual enforcement/punishment, but CAN determine status in a “helping out the feds with info” role?

Might as well uphold up a bean and cheese burrito…

No Meat!

Immigration law needs to be addressed by the Congress. Unfortunately, that will require a Congress willing to treat illegal immigration as an actual problem and a President who is willing to do his job and enforce the law.

    JayDick in reply to Sanddog. | June 25, 2012 at 11:07 am

    The whole subject of immigration (legal and illegal) needs to be revisited in a logical way with the interests of the U.S. being the paramount objective. Current law and practice seems to put the immigrants’ interests first.

    For example, how does it serve U.S. interests to allow extended families to immigrate here just because one family member is here? Only immediate families should be allowed to come on that basis (spouses, minor children).

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Sanddog. | June 25, 2012 at 4:55 pm

    I disagree.

    How have we come to the conclusion that “we need immigration reform”? The 1986 Immigration Law is in full force, yet we don’t enforce those laws! So, how do we know they need to be changed or reformed?

    We don’t need more laws. We only need to enforce the ones on the books. If that doesn’t work, then make changes.

    This should just be blind, stupid common sense.

Big loss for Jan Brewer

    Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 25, 2012 at 11:09 am

    How so?

      PhillyGuy in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2012 at 12:03 pm

      They essentially ruled it’s a federal issue and that the states can’t usurp that. The one part they kept could be challenged in court again. I’d say that was a big loss.

        Ragspierre in reply to PhillyGuy. | June 25, 2012 at 12:18 pm

        But why ascribe a law passed by the entire state law-making mechanism to Jan Brewer?

        It seems like a loss for Arizona, and for all the states.

        And for rational national interest. No European country is as permissive as we are. Mexico certainly isn’t, either.

[…] » Supreme Court upholds key immigration status check provision of Arizona law – Le&middo… […]

Half a loaf is better than none. It takes time and more conservative Justices. Keep that in mind when voting in November.

    PhillyGuy in reply to Towson Lawyer. | June 25, 2012 at 12:16 pm

    Really it’s not even half a loaf. They allowed the status check to go forward but it can be challenged in court after it’s been implemented. They stopped officers from arresting people for minor immigration offenses.

    Brewer can spin it all she wants but the part they kept is going to wind up in court again.

Midwest Rhino | June 25, 2012 at 11:32 am

Another item for Obama to “give” to win votes. “Everything’s free in America”, but those evil Republicans are so persnickety about rule of law.

But do voters really want more non-enforcement on immigration? Obama’s strategy seems to assume all the giveaways are very important to one class, but not enough to swing the vote of those that disagree. But his blatant pandering to unions, illegals, and “minorities” is wearing thin on the tolerance of those being called RACIST for any unwillingness to have their earned assets redistributed to Obama’s political supporters.

I don’t get it-

To say “We uphold the law–if and until it is abused; then, we may strike it”

Is not every law abused?

Do we punish the law, or do we punish the abuser of the law?

Further, I don’t understand why they even took the case. Seems to me they are saying the case isn’t ripe yet, since no one has been harmed, since the law hasn’t taken affect yet.

If so, what does that say about the Obamacare mandate?

I’ve read a bit here and there. From what I gather–my opinion only–this entire ruling is junk.

Wow. Just read Scalia’s dissent in the AZ case. He says it is an assault on state sovereignty (I agree, and not just because I live in AZ).

Interestingly, Scalia also blasts Obama’s recent decision to not enforce immigration law against a huge category of illegals:

“It has become clear that federal enforcement priorities—in the sense of priorities based on the need to allocate “scarce enforcement resources”—is not the problem here. After this case was argued and while it was under consideration, the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30. . . . .

The husbanding of scarce enforcement resources can hardly be the justification for this, since the considerable administrative cost of conducting as many as 1.4 million background checks, and ruling on the biennial requests for dispensation that the non-enforcement program envisions, will necessarily be deducted from immigration enforcement. The President said at a news conference that the new program is “the right thing to do” in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act.7 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.
. . . .

But there has come to pass, and is with us today, the specter that Arizona and the States that support it predicted: A Federal Government that does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude. So the issue is a stark one. Are the sovereign States at the mercy of the Federal Executive’s refusal to enforce the Nation’s immigration laws?
A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the States conceivably have entered into the Union if the Constitution itself contained the Court’s holding? Today’s judgment surely fails that test.”

What did the Thomas dissent say?

      jimzinsocal in reply to jimzinsocal. | June 25, 2012 at 1:58 pm

      Thomas points: In part

      As is often the case, discussion of the dry legalities that are the proper object of our attention suppresses the very human realities that gave rise to the suit. Arizona bears the brunt of the country’s illegal immigration problem. Its citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy. Federal officials have been unable to remedy the problem, and indeed have recently shown that they are unwilling to do so. Thousands of Arizona’s estimated 400,000 illegal immigrants—including not just children but men and women under 30—are now assured immunity from enforcement, and will be able to compete openly with Ari- zona citizens for employment.

      Arizona has moved to protect its sovereignty—not in contradiction of federal law, but in complete compliance with it. The laws under challenge here do not extend or revise federal immigration restrictions, but merely enforce those restrictions more effectively. If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign State. I dissent.

      ——————————————————————————–

Juba Doobai! | June 25, 2012 at 12:09 pm

I understand this holding to mean that in the SCt’s view, or rather that of the liberals on the SCt, we have laws which can be disregarded.

    Browndog in reply to Juba Doobai!. | June 25, 2012 at 12:21 pm

    That’s what I got too-

    By authorizing state officers to decide whether an alien should be detained for being removable, §6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.

    Tell me again how how asking for identification is not part of that “process”?

    It’s seems to be the very first part of the process. It seems that the Supreme’s are saying that is where the process ends.

    What the hell good is it??

      Juba Doobai! in reply to Browndog. | June 25, 2012 at 1:39 pm

      I just read Justice Thomas’s dissent. He devastates Breyer’s majority opinion by showing it to be totally bogus with respect to the content and interpretation of federal law and the Arizona statute in question. The Commies are finding meaning where none exists again.

Essentially its another 5 – 4 decision put together by Kennedy , Roberts in an attempt to split the baby. Kagan sat it out to give political cover for her Obamacare refusal to recuse. She knew this result was coming. The 3 partial dessenters went along with what was there. The 3 , actual 4 no’s are awaiting Obamas 2nd term. Prediction: No way will Obamacare be struck down tho its blatently unconstititutional. The best we can hope for is ruling mandate out. But then we all knew this didnt we.

I’m very disappointed with the ruling. I fully support Scalia’s dissent. Where do we go from here? Hoards of illegals continue to jump the fence, employers keep on hiring cheap labor, our hospital ER requests are bulging, etc. And the honest, legal citizen is supposed to PAY for all this crap? Bullcrap! Pretty soon it will be “press 1 for Spanish, 2 for English”.

What the hell is wrong with the country? Pat Buchanan sure called it correctly in “The Death of the West”. I’d like to see one of the border states try to secede and take matters in their own hands. If the feds won’t do it, and WON’T ALLOW the states to do it, then the states should secede and take matters into their own hands for their own survival.

    Ragspierre in reply to walls. | June 25, 2012 at 12:28 pm

    Not to worry.

    Pres. Composite has sufficiently screwed our economy as to make net immigration a moot point.

I have no real quarrel with the preemption argument- the Constitution is pretty clear about Congress’ supremacy in this area.
The Libs are in apoplexy over the part that was kept in-that’s a win as far as I’m concerned.

    Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | June 25, 2012 at 12:38 pm

    Not really. The Constitution is really pretty mute on the issue of immigration. The whole ambit was court created.

      persecutor in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2012 at 12:51 pm

      True, it speaks of uniform rules of naturalization which by extension implies the power to establish who shall be entitled to take advantage of those uniform laws on naturalization.

        Ragspierre in reply to persecutor. | June 25, 2012 at 1:07 pm

        I REALLY have never understood the idea that the Feds have a unique power to control immigration.

        The states have their own admiralty laws, as a rule, though that was considered a Federal power under the Constitution.

        Courts have granted “pendant jurisdiction” in MANY areas, with no great problem. Where laws really DO conflict, courts deal with it very nicely…seems to me.

          jimzinsocal in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2012 at 3:17 pm

          If I recall correctly from reading sometime ago..Congress sort of adopted the immigration issue via the power to regulate commerce with foreugn countries. Goes waay back I believe. Sure its a stretch perhaps of intention but here we are.
          Wait..found the link. Pretty good reading

          http://immigration-online.org/445-us-congress.html

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 25, 2012 at 3:48 pm

          Yah. That ol’ omnibus root of all evil…The Commerce Clause.

          And note that the genius for this was really pretty xenophobic.

          There DID have to be a rational rule of law to control the influx of people “yearning to be free”, but it should have been done more deliberately and Constitutionally.

          We always wind up paying for shortcuts.

I have always felt, and still do, that the heart of the case was whether or not States can assist in enforcing Federal Law.

Does this mean that a local cop can’t arrest a bank robber? But, can check his ID?

Or is this just a special carve out for immigration policy, the law being moot?

This is why I loathe beyond loathe “precedent”. Can’t wait to see how future Courts dance around this one as to not step on this new “Law of the Land”

    Beeblebrox in reply to Browndog. | June 25, 2012 at 2:07 pm

    Browndog wrote: “Does this mean that a local cop can’t arrest a bank robber? But, can check his ID?”

    I think there is a logical extension of the SCOTUS decision. UP until today, the states were expected to enforce all kinds of federal laws. I would argue that this ruling means that states don’t have to enforce, and in fact SHOULD not enforce federal laws.

    The SCOTUS effectively just told the states: “you may not enforce federal law”.

    So if there is a violator of the Endangered Species Act, state authorities can ignore it if they want? What about federal gun laws? If the Feds want to enforce them, I guess they have to go it alone on that front.

    How about putting a violator of federal law into a local slammer? The state or local jurisdiction should just say, “the SCOTUS” said that we have no right to get involved in the enforcement of federal law and using our jail is part of enforcement and therefore, a violation of that ruling.

    How many stupid liberal (but I repeat myself) federal statutes are there that a state can now ignore if they want?

      Tortuga in reply to Beeblebrox. | June 25, 2012 at 3:27 pm

      Start the IMPEACHMENT trial now!!!!

      TrooperJohnSmith in reply to Beeblebrox. | June 25, 2012 at 5:02 pm

      Yep… next time you have some zealot holed up in his compound or a kidnapper crossing state lines, tell the state and local cops to stand down.

      There you go Obama, Holder and J-Nap.

    Siboad in reply to Browndog. | June 25, 2012 at 9:30 pm

    I believe you are correct Sir.

    SCOTUS ruled today that “a state law must also give way to federal law” …… “where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.””

    18 USC § 2113 – Bank robbery and incidental crimes clearly states:
    (a) Whoever, by force and violence, or by intimidation, takes, or attempts to take, from the person or presence of another, or obtains or attempts to obtain by extortion any property or money or any other thing of value belonging to, or in the care, custody, control, management, or possession of, any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association; or
    Whoever enters or attempts to enter any bank, credit union, or any savings and loan association, or any building used in whole or in part as a bank, credit union, or as a savings and loan association, with intent to commit in such bank, credit union, or in such savings and loan association, or building, or part thereof, so used, any felony affecting such bank, credit union, or such savings and loan association and in violation of any statute of the United States, or any larceny—
    Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

So much for Federalism if the Executive can choose not to enforce the laws Congress passed and this choice is binding on the States.

Donald Douglas | June 25, 2012 at 1:20 pm

Linked William: ‘Supreme Court Upholds Key Provision of Arizona’s SB 1070’.

“Progressives will highlight that 3 of 4 of the law’s provisions were struck down. But the thing to emphasis is that it’s really the key provision that was upheld by the court — the authority for local law enforcement to determine the legal residency status of suspects in a lawful stop. That’s what’s been called “racial profiling” for these past few years. It’s what progressives targeted for defeat at the Court. In that sense, no matter what the left says, this is a huge defeat for the open borders extremists in the Democrat Party and the radical netroots fever swamps.”

    PhillyGuy in reply to Donald Douglas. | June 25, 2012 at 4:14 pm

    That’s just spin from the right. We got smoked by this decision. Even the provision they upheld can be re-litigated if racial profiling emerges from it. And there is no doubt, the left will find a case which can offer litigation.

    I found Jan Brewer’s reaction to be completely bizarre. She just got her signature legislation (and her partners in the Arizona legislature) repudiated and she’s declaring victory? The Supreme Court just took away the ability of a state to enforce its borders when the Federal Government won’t. How is that a victory?

Scalia’s argument seems odd. One can’t simply say that a law which infringes on the sovereignty of a particular state is automatically unconstitutional, since the Constitution doesn’t recognize the states as totally sovereign. Ratification of the Constitution itself removed some of the sovereignty states had previously. The Constitution imposed limitations on states’ relations with other states and with foreign countries, among other things. Similarly, it’s not clear what Scalia means when he says that Arizona is entitled to have its own immigration policy. Does that mean that Arizona can, say, require visitors from Nebraska to have visas? Or that no citizen of Kansas is allowed to move to Arizona? Or that Arizona residents are not allowed to visit Vermont? Individual American states simply don’t have immigration policies in the same sense that nations do.

Alito’s dissent seems to identify the real problem here. What he’s describing is a power of veto-after-the-fact currently being exercised by the Executive, and that power has no Constitutional basis.

    Ragspierre in reply to tom swift. | June 25, 2012 at 1:33 pm

    “Does that mean that Arizona can, say, require visitors from Nebraska to have visas? Or that no citizen of Kansas is allowed to move to Arizona? Or that Arizona residents are not allowed to visit Vermont? Individual American states simply don’t have immigration policies in the same sense that nations do.”

    Seriously dumb. Read up on the Articles Of Confederation, and WHY the Constitution came to be.

    See also Amendment, Tenth.

    Browndog in reply to tom swift. | June 25, 2012 at 1:40 pm

    That’s quite the reach you got there-

    Maybe you too should take your talents to South Beach.

I blame Ronald Reagan and his 1986 amnesty.

Never reward bad or illegal behaviour unless you want more bad or illegal behaviour.

The “process” of immigration law enforcement:

1) Identify
2) Detain
3) adjudicate
4) Deport

The “process” as defined by the Supreme Court:

1) Detain
2) adjudicate
3) Deport

The “process” of immigration law enforcement as defined by the Executive Branch:

1)
2)
3)
4)
5) Vote

A bit off topic but you can rest easy tonight that the northern border between Detroit and Canuckistan is well protected…

Last year during the Detroit #TargetFireworks law enforcement cleared some cars out of security concerns, towed them leaving families stranded.
This year they’ve ramped up security to unprecedented levels with designated parking areas ($$ charged), secured zones, street closures and a bunch of rules with the aid of DPD, (3) County Sheriff departments…
US Customs and Border Patrol
US Coast Guard
US Border Patrol
and DHS with recommendations from Ready Dot Gov to be prepared for a possible emergency.
Important items to have ready to ensure your family is prepared:
-A battery powered radio, flashlight, extra batteries, medicines, non-perishable food, and first-aid supplies.

Shontel Washington ‏@naturallyurs88
You know yo city BROKE when they start charging niggas to be outside…#DetroitFireworks
12:29 PM – 19 Jun 12

I wouldn’t doubt it if DHS brings some Drones to the party.

next up suing ALL state DEA for operating on their own.

All the legalisms, lawyers, and fancy talk aside, one key phrase pretty much sums up the entire sequence of events, doesn’t it: “…§6 violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the Federal Government.” Principles. Discretion. Pretty soft stuff. It was the absence of principles on the part of key players in the Federal Government and, at their discretion, the decision to not enforce existing laws that caused AZ to pursue its own remedy in the first place.

“Entrusting” anything to the Federal Government today – including the Supreme Court – is fraught with danger.

    faketony in reply to Owego. | June 25, 2012 at 4:05 pm

    As a past inmate of the former “Pink Prison”, 231 Main St., I appreciate your nick, Sir (or Ma`am).

Meanwhile, as FOX News reports:

“In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona’s immigration law, Obama administration officials announced Monday they are suspending a key program that allowed state and local law enforcement to enforce federal immigration law.”

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/25/feds-suspend-immigration-enforcement-program-after-arizona-court-ruling/#ixzz1ypbOuH8z

    Browndog in reply to ALman. | June 25, 2012 at 2:52 pm

    Yep, and this is just the beginning-

    This ruling also opens the door for Obama to implement a “policy” of blanket amnesty.

    A lot of folks are now pessimistic about the coming Obamacare ruling–based on this tortured legal logic we saw today-

    So am I.

    Sanddog in reply to ALman. | June 25, 2012 at 2:55 pm

    The administration has just opened the border between Arizona and Mexico to anyone who wants to cross illegally.

    Isn’t it nice to have a President who is so vindictive, so immature and so venal that he will punish the citizens of a state that refuses to bow down to him?

      Browndog in reply to Sanddog. | June 25, 2012 at 3:10 pm

      Obama: All your laws belong to me. I AM THE LAW!

      Supreme Court: You got it, big guy. Let us know if anyone else tries to usurp your Supreme authority.

      ALman in reply to Sanddog. | June 25, 2012 at 3:24 pm

      Yep. I just don’t get it.

      It is illegal to enter this country except as perscribed by law? Yes or no. If the asnwer is “no” then what’s all the fuss?

      If the answer is “yes” then the Feds have just said they are not going to assist the states with enforcing the law.

      Well, Glen Beck called it in 2007 and said the “perfect storm” was building. Now, we’re in it and I’m wondering how long it’s going to continue and what will be the colateral afterwards. Also, why aren’t we witnessing a “swarm” of legal challenges, from lower courts to the Supreme Court, at these blatant grasps for power.

Rule of law is the only protection from tyranny. To paraphrase Alito: The Obama administration makes the ‘quite remarkable’ case that state law, that is not in conflict with federal law, may be usurped because a federal agency will not enforce the law.

Picking and choosing which laws to enforce is the definition of tyranny.

[…] More analysis of the ruling from Professor Jacobson of Legal Insurrection, including excerpts of the dissents authored by […]

[…] Professor thinks the key part is the Court upholding the key part of the law. SCOTUSblog thinks the entire law is gone, if not now, […]

In light of the news that DHS is saying SCREW YOU to Arizona in the wake of the Supremes’ decision…

Arizona is certainly NOT barred from putting interdicted illegals on buses for Kuhlifornia.

Not. One. Thing.

I wasn’t following Legal Insurrection back in 2010 but this post on ID requirements in Obamacare was fascinating. Everyone should re-read this. Thank you Professor Jacobson. http://networkedblogs.com/zbF6i

Henry Hawkins | June 25, 2012 at 8:45 pm

The states and the feds have worked pretty well together on drug interdiction. Is there anything in the fed/state anti-drug ops that might lend itself as a template for fed/state illegal immigration ops? Not now, mind you. For after the O-hole is gone and a genuine effort at reform is afoot.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend