The
Supreme Court took a dim view of the
Obama administrations effort to halt Arizonas immigration-crackdown law with the justices signaling an inclination during oral arguments Wednesday to approve requiring police to check the status of those suspected of being in the U.S. illegally.
At stake is not only Arizonas law but those in a handful of other states that followed Arizonas lead over the past two years all of which have been put at least partly on hold as challenges wind their way through the federal courts.
While the justices seemed inclined to let the police immigration checks stand as long as they dont substantially increase the amount of time citizens and legal immigrants are detained the fate of the other contentious provisions was less clear.
At root the battle came down to whether Arizona is trying to help or hinder the
federal governments immigration policy.
The framers vested in the
national government the authority over immigration because they understood that the way this nation treats citizens of other countries is a vital aspect of our foreign relations" Solicitor General
Donald B. Verrilli Jr. the
governments top constitutional lawyer told the
court.
But several justices said when it came to the immigration checks it appeared Arizona was only trying to help.
It seems to me the
federal government just doesnt want to know whos here illegally" Chief
Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said at one point.
Federal law already lets local police call and check immigration status and in some instances even requires it for prisons and jails.
Mr. Verrilli said immigration-status checks are fine as long as police perform them voluntarily but he said Arizona crossed a line by making it mandatory.
The justices on both sides of the
courts ideological divide didnt buy that.
You can see its not selling very well why dont you try to come up with something else?" said
Justice Sonia Sotomayor appointed by President Obama.
In addition to the immigration checks the Arizona law known as S.B. 1070 had three other provisions blocked by lower courts: giving police the power to arrest anyone they think committed a crime that would get them deported making it a state crime for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job and requiring legal immigrants to carry their papers with them at all times.
The
Obama administration was on its firmest ground when it argued that Arizona went too far in making it illegal for an illegal immigrant to apply for a job.
Federal law chiefly targets employers not employees and
Mr. Verrilli said adding stiffer penalties at the state level is not coordination. He said
Congress 1986 immigration law laying out legal penalties was meant to be a comprehensive scheme and
Congress left employees untouched.
Justice Sotomayor seemed to agree.
It seems odd to think the
federal government is deciding on employer sanctions and has unconsciously decided not to punish employees" she told Paul D. Clement who argued the case on behalf of Arizona.
A decision is expected before the end of the
courts term in June.
Just eight justices were present for the arguments. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from the case presumably because she was the
Obama administrations solicitor general in 2010 when the law was being debated in Arizona.
In one pointed exchange
Justice Antonin Scalia said Arizonas law doesnt target anyone the
federal government hasnt already decided shouldnt be in the U.S.
He said the
administration is trying to force Arizona to heel to the
administrations own priorities in which Mr. Obama has called for deporting some categories of illegal immigrants while leaving others untouched rather than to what U.S. law actually says.
He repeatedly peppered
Mr. Verrilli with questions about whether there was another example where the courts had deferred to an administrations priorities rather than the law.
I think thats an extraordinary basis for saying that the state is pre-empted"
Justice Scalia said. Its not criminalizing anything that isnt criminal under federal law."
Mr. Verrilli struggled to come up with an answer but said the states intent behind the law was the problem.
The point of this provision is to drive unlawfully present people out of the state of Arizona" he said.
On that he got no argument from Cochise County Sheriff
Larry A. Dever whose jurisdiction includes 83 miles of U.S.-Mexico border. Speaking to The Washington Times after attending the oral arguments Sheriff
Dever said the reason illegal immigration is swamping Arizona now is because federal government policies pushed it away from California and Texas and into his state in the 1990s.
He said S.B. 1070 doesnt have a major impact on his county the county is close enough to the border that it already can turn over illegal immigrants to the U.S. Border Patrol for removal but he said counties farther north will clamp down which should relieve the flow of people crossing through his county.
It was moved elsewhere from San Diego and El Paso into southern Arizona. The reason it moves elsewhere is because it can" he said. Thats our whole argument. We want the
federal government to take up the cause and have the resources it needs to keep it from moving from one place to another."
Sheriff
Dever said Homeland Security officials invite state and local police cooperation in every area of anti-terrorism enforcement except immigration law.
Why is that?" he asked adding that the same smugglers who guide people across the border also traffic in drugs and could potentially aid terrorists.
