Gee, why aren't our GOP brethren out here extolling this ruling?
I haven't read the decision, and here is the report from the newspaper of record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-decision-a-narrow-opening-for-other-states.html?_r=1&hp
And from the right wing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480392205316110.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
From this and other reports, including a conference call with the USDOJ today, it sounds like a pretty resounding affirmation of the rule that the Federal government controls nearly all aspects of immigration law enforcement. The Court rejected the possibility of a "patchwork" of state laws affecting immigration enforcement. The Court overturned AZ's law that violation of a federal immigration law was also a violation of state law, and the provision that being an illegal immigrant meant AZ could jail you.
In fact the only provision of the law allowed to stand, and barely, was the portion that allowed local law enforcement to verify an arrested person's immigration status. But even here, the Court was hard on the law, stating it could not be used for racial profiling, that they were only rejecting the facial attack on the law, and they might revise their view once they saw how AZ enforced it. The opinion also says that states cannot use such authority to hold persons for reasons not authorized by the federal immigration rules.
I see this this a big win for the federal administration, with the possibility of future litigation on the verification rule. In practice, there is is a lot of discretion for law enforcement personnel. Whether a stop is justified or is racial profiling is difficult to assess in hindsight. Of course, depending on the jurisdiction, this also allows police to say "eh" when the state law might say they should verify immigration status.
This is a pretty resounding victory for the rule that immigration issues are issues for the federal government, for better or for worse.
I haven't read the decision, and here is the report from the newspaper of record:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/26/us/justices-decision-a-narrow-opening-for-other-states.html?_r=1&hp
And from the right wing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304898704577480392205316110.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories
From this and other reports, including a conference call with the USDOJ today, it sounds like a pretty resounding affirmation of the rule that the Federal government controls nearly all aspects of immigration law enforcement. The Court rejected the possibility of a "patchwork" of state laws affecting immigration enforcement. The Court overturned AZ's law that violation of a federal immigration law was also a violation of state law, and the provision that being an illegal immigrant meant AZ could jail you.
In fact the only provision of the law allowed to stand, and barely, was the portion that allowed local law enforcement to verify an arrested person's immigration status. But even here, the Court was hard on the law, stating it could not be used for racial profiling, that they were only rejecting the facial attack on the law, and they might revise their view once they saw how AZ enforced it. The opinion also says that states cannot use such authority to hold persons for reasons not authorized by the federal immigration rules.
I see this this a big win for the federal administration, with the possibility of future litigation on the verification rule. In practice, there is is a lot of discretion for law enforcement personnel. Whether a stop is justified or is racial profiling is difficult to assess in hindsight. Of course, depending on the jurisdiction, this also allows police to say "eh" when the state law might say they should verify immigration status.
This is a pretty resounding victory for the rule that immigration issues are issues for the federal government, for better or for worse.
