Showdown Over Arizona Immigration Law Reaches Federal Appeals Court
Lawyers for both sides in debate over Arizona's immigration law make their case.
Nov. 1, 2010 — -- Lawyers for Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and the U.S. Justice Department faced off before a panel of federal appeals court judges in San Francisco today over the fate of Arizona's controversial immigration law.
Key parts of the law, known as SB 1070, including a provision that would allow police to arrest and detain suspected illegal immigrants based on "reasonable suspicion," were ruled unconstitutional by District Court Judge Susan Bolton in July and blocked from taking effect.
The three-judge panel now will decide whether all or parts of the law should be reinstated or struck down. The case ultimately could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
In her ruling, Judge Bolton agreed, ruling that enforcement of the most contentious provisions of the law would preempt the federal government's exclusive authority to set and implement a national immigration policy.
But Brewer's legal team contends Bolton made "serious errors" in her decision. They argue that the law is essential for Arizona to combat consequences of illegal immigration, which the federal government has curtailed inadequately.
"Congress has repeatedly encouraged cooperation and assistance from state and local authorities in enforcing federal immigration law," attorney John Bouma wrote in the governor's appellate brief. "And it is Congress -- not DHS [Department of Homeland Security] -- that controls whether SB 1070 is preempted."
Some parts of the law have taken effect, including criminalizing state officials interfering with or refraining from enforcement of federal immigration laws. It is also illegal to pick up and transport day laborers across the state, or to give a ride to or harbor an illegal alien. A vehicle used to transport an illegal alien can be impounded.
"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime, including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns and money," Bolton wrote in her decision. But the court "finds that preserving the status quo through a preliminary injunction is less harmful than allowing state laws that are likely preempted by federal law to be enforced."
Immigrant advocates and civil rights groups, several major city governments including Seattle and San Francisco, and governments of nearly a dozen Latin American countries have filed friend-of-the-court briefs in opposition to the law.
Eleven states, a group of 80 conservative U.S. House lawmakers and a coalition of border-region sheriffs have sided with Arizona in legal briefs supporting the law.
"I am steadfast in my belief that states have the sovereign right to enforce immigration laws consistent with federal immigration laws," Brewer said in a statement. "The overwhelming support that the state of Arizona and I have received from across America in this fight with the federal government to reestablish the rule of law in Arizona has been truly gratifying."
The independent fund established by Brewer to finance legal defense of the law has collected more than $3 million from tens of thousands of donors across the U.S., according to the Arizona Republic. Brewer has reported spending more than $1 million on legal fees defending SB 1070 so far.