WASHINGTON—The U.S. Supreme Court has struck down three parts of Arizona’s controversial law targeting illegal immigration, but in retaining a fourth provision, it leaves open the likelihood of further challenges.
In a 5–3 ruling on Monday, the Supreme Court sided with the Obama administration’s claim that the law violated federal jurisdiction. The justices struck those provisions that made it a crime for illegal immigrants to be without federal identity documents or to seek work. They also rejected the legality of police arresting illegal immigrants without a warrant solely on the suspicion that they may have committed a crime.
“The national government has significant power to regulate immigration,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. “Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.”
In retaining the fourth provision, Section 2(B), the Supreme Court justices leave open the possibility of further challenges to the law. The provision allows the police to check an arrestee’s or suspect’s immigration status, raising concerns that it could become a license for racial profiling.
Section 2(B) was also seen as a key part of the state’s law, the court’s decision drawing a claim of victory from Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer.
It is “a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” she said in a statement.
Gregory Chen, director of advocacy for the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), believes Brewer is making a mistake in claiming a victory.
He says the Supreme Court was unable to make a decision on 2(B) because the state courts had not yet implemented the law, thereby restricting the high court in determining its legality.
Significantly, the Supreme Court noted that while 2(B) does prohibit stops based on race or national origin and points out that the stops must be consistent with federal laws, it leaves open the possibility of being ruled unconstitutional in future challenges, he said.
Chen said AILA was involved in one of a number of pending lawsuits against the Arizona law in the lower court brought by civil rights and immigration organizations. He believes the Brewer victory cry will strengthen the resolve to see the law completely buried.
“We are going to keep pressing forward and keep fighting it; that is the most important step here,” he said.
Strong Response to Ruling
President Obama released a statement on the Supreme Court’s decision, saying he was pleased that key provisions of the law were struck down, but remained concerned about the “practical impact of the remaining provision.”
“I agree with the court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status,” he said.
Obama said the ruling highlighted the need for Congress to “act on comprehensive immigration reform.”
The Obama administration had sued to block the Arizona law, known as S.B. 1070, which had become a blueprint for similar laws in five other states: Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina, and Utah.
Michael Dorf, a former Supreme Court clerk and now professor of law at Cornell University, says the ruling sends a strong message to the other states that immigration is a federal domain.
“Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion is a strong statement that states may not conduct their own immigration policy, absent a clear invitation from Congress. There was no such invitation here,” he said in a statement.
Immigration scholar Stephen Yale-Loehr, also at Cornell University, remains concerned that in retaining 2(B), states may feel free to adopt the law as it suits them.
“The court correctly held that federal immigration law trumps most of Arizona’s controversial immigration law. But by upholding Arizona’s ‘check your papers’ provision, at least for now, the court has given other states a green light to try to enact similar immigration laws,” he said.
“Some will be anti-immigrant, like Arizona’s. But other new state laws may be pro-immigrant, as states realize the importance of immigrants in their communities.”
He echoed Obama’s call for comprehensive immigration reform.
“The decision increases pressure on Congress to enact comprehensive immigration law to prevent a crazy patchwork of conflicting immigration laws around the country.”
For documented and undocumented immigrants living in the United States under threat of the laws, the ruling has not been entirely reassuring, says Shiu-Ming Cheer, an immigration attorney with the National Immigration Law Center (NILC).
Cheer said NILC represents a number of individuals and organizations in the state of Arizona, and discussions with them on the ruling had brought “a sense of mixed feelings.”
“People also feel a strong desire to continue fighting, to continue organizing their communities, and to continue educating everybody so that people are aware that, regardless of their immigration status, they still have rights,” Cheer said.
The Epoch Times publishes in 35 countries and in 19 languages. Subscribe to our e-newsletter.
