The Supreme Court of the United States added another high profile case to its election year docket on Monday, when it agreed to review Arizona’s controversial immigration law in 2012.
The high court will examine whether some components of Arizona’s SB1070 are constitutional, including allowing police to check the immigration status of those detained for other causes, or suspected of being in the country illegally.
The Obama administration led a suit by the Department of Justice against the Arizona law in 2010, arguing it usurped federal authority.
A federal district court in Arizona ruled in favor of the Justice Department, saying police could not request proof of immigration status, blocking controversial provisions of the new law. The ruling was further upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Arizona appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer praised the court’s decision to hear the case. “I am confident the high court will uphold Arizona’s constitutional authority and obligation to protect the safety and welfare of its citizens.”
The governor defended the controversial law, citing a state’s right to control its border, and the financial strain illegal immigration places on state coffers. “This case is not just about Arizona,” Brewer said. “It’s about every state grappling with the costs of illegal immigration. And it’s about the fundamental principle of federalism, under which these states have a right to defend their people.”
When asked about the Supreme Court’s decision to look at Arizona’s immigration law, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday responded, “Obviously you know the president’s position and this administration’s position. And we look forward to arguing our point of view in that case when the time comes.”
The Supreme Court’s decision could also impact similar tough immigration measures in Alabama, Indiana, Georgia, Utah, and South Carolina.
The immigration case is one of two prominent cases with political ramifications during the 2012 presidential election year. The court had agreed earlier to rule on the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also referred to as “Obamacare.”
