Sponsored by

Note: This story is more than 3 years old.

Brewer asks Supreme Court to lift SB 1070 injunction

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to overturn a lower court's injunction that bars the enforcement of much of the state's controversial SB 1070 immigration law.

By appealing to the Supreme Court, Brewer and state Attorney General Tom Horne bypass an opportunity for a full review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

"I am hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will choose to take this case and issue much-needed clarity for states, such as Arizona, that are grappling with the significant human and financial costs of illegal immigration," Brewer said in a press release.

"SB1070 was Arizona’s way of saying that we won’t wait patiently for federal action any longer. If the federal government won’t enforce its immigration laws, we will," she said.

In April, a three-judge Appeals Court panel refused to overturn a court order that blocks enforcement of SB 1070's requirement that police question people about their immigration status.

"One of the most shocking parts of the Ninth Circuit decision was the claim that Arizona was interfering with foreign policy, a federal monopoly," Horne said of the filing with the high court.

"Arizona established no embassies or consulates, and signed no treaties. What it did do is adopt policies that other countries disagree with. If the Ninth Circuit holding that that is prohibited to the state is not overturned by the Supreme Court, this country’s sovereignty is in trouble."

A Supreme Court appeal means "there is greater likelihood that legal questions surrounding SB 1070 will be resolved quickly," Brewer said in May.

Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Vanessa Richter, Marvin Kirchler, and Dylan Smith and contribute today!

If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, arguments could be held next spring.

The federal government sued the state last year to halt enforcement of the law, claiming it unconstitutionally infringed on federal authority to make immigration law.

The state's legal team argued that the federal government has failed to enforce immigration laws, and that Arizona must make its own.

Many of the law's provisions have never been enforced; they were enjoined by a federal judge the day before the law took effect last July.

Ninth Circuit denied appeal

On April 11, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the lower court "did not abuse its discretion" in blocking parts of the law from taking effect last year.

While that decision means only that the law cannot be enforced while it is under review by the courts, it was a further blow to Arizona's attempt to make immigration law. A failed appeal to the Supreme Court would make it unlikely SB 1070 would ever take effect.

The judges agreed with U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton, who issued a preliminary injunction in July preventing sections of SB 1070 from being enforced.

The panel agreed, with one dissenter on some points, that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the blocked provisions unconstitutionally infringe on the federal government's exclusive power to make immigration laws.

The decision is supported by "the threat of 50 states layering their own immigration enforcement rules on top of the Immigration and Naturalization Act," wrote Judge Richard Paez.

The decision rejected Arizona's contention it could enact a state law against undocumented workers seeking employment, citing Congress' "affirmative choice not to criminalize work as a method of discouraging unauthorized immigrant employment."

Thanks to our donors and sponsors for their support of local independent reporting. Join Barbara Tellman, Michael Milczarek, and Fund for Nonprofit News at the Miami Foundation and contribute today!

"Congress has deliberately crafted a very particular calibration of force which does not include the criminalization of work," Paez wrote.

The court also upheld Bolton's injunction against Arizona law enforcement arresting suspected illegal immigrants without warrants based on a believe that they could be subject to civil removal from the United States.

"Contrary to the State's view, we simply are not persuaded that Arizona has the authority to unilaterally transform state and local law enforcement officers into a state-controlled DHS force to carry out its declared policy of attrition," the decision said.

The panel split on part of the decision, with Judge Carlos Bea's dissent saying that there is evidence that Congress intended states to assist in enforcing some federal immigration laws.

Bea found two of the law's provisions constitutional, those allowing police to ask questions about immigration status and make warrantless arrests.

"As I see it, Congress has clearly expressed its intention that state officials should assist federal officials in checking the immigration status of aliens," Bea wrote.

But Paez and Judge John Noonan disagreed, writing: "Congress intended for state officers to systematically aid in immigration enforcement only under the close supervision of the Attorney General...."

The court also cited the federal government's objection to the law because it would interfere with foreign relations as part of its decision.

"Arizona's law has created actual foreign policy problems of a magnitude far greater than incidental" and the law "thwarts the Executive's ability to singularly manage the spillover effects of the nation's immigration laws on foreign affairs," Paez wrote.

July injunction

Bolton's July 28 injunction, issued the day before the law was to take effect, blocked several parts of the anti-illegal immigration measure:

  • The section that requires an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there's reasonable suspicion they're in the country illegally, and the section requiring that anyone arrested have their immigration status verified.
  • The section that creates a state crime of failure to apply for or carry "alien-registration papers."
  • The section that makes it a crime for illegal immigrants to solicit, apply for or perform work (but not the section on day laborers).
  • The section that allows for a warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe they have committed a public offense that makes them removable from the United States.

Gov. Jan Brewer filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit the day after Bolton made her ruling.

Saying the Justice Department is likely to show at trial that those sections are preempted by federal law, Bolton agreed in her July ruling that the federal government is likely to suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not issued "because the federal government's ability to enforce its policies and achieve its objectives will be undermined by the state's enforcement of statutes that interfere with federal law."

Bolton rejected arguments by the Justice Department that other parts of SB 1070 are preempted by federal laws. She left intact sections of the law that create a state crime of transporting or harboring an illegal alien, and changes in the law on impounding vehicles used to transport illegal immigrants.

The judge left other sections of SB 1070 intact because they were not challenged by the feds:

  • The section requiring Arizona officials to work with the federal government regarding illegal immigration.
  • The section allowing suits against agencies, officials and government bodies for adopting policies that restrict the enforcement of federal immigration statutes "to less than the full extent permitted by federal law."

"I look at this as a bump in the road," said Gov. Jan Brewer last July. Brewer, who signed SB 1070 in April 2010, expressed confidence that the law is constitutional and will be upheld at trial. Brewer said she would appeal the injunction.

"I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona," Brewer said in a statement last year.

SB 1070's enactment set off a renewed debate over immigration in Arizona and throughout the nation. Legislators in other states have looked to Pearce and Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach (another architect of the law) for advice on passing their own laws on immigration.

Like what you're reading? Support high-quality local journalism and help underwrite independent news without the spin.

Thousands opposed to the measure marched in cities across the state, with many calling for a boycott of Arizona. Protests throughout the nation called on Arizona to repeal the law. Smaller demonstrations, mainly sponsored by Tea Party organizations, supported the anti-illegal immigration bill.

- 30 -
have your say   

3 comments on this story

3
179 comments
Aug 10, 2011, 4:00 pm
-2 +0

Currently these are the 12 contenders for the presidential candidacy, regarding one of the highest issues that will hit the campaign trail for 2012. Chris Christie present Governor of New Jersey has not decided on this path yet.  The majority of competitors will debating about jobs, the economy, foreign policy and many other issues in Ames, Iowa straw poll. There is dilemma that we cannot escape from, as it causing a major displacement of working Americans. According to a report there are an estimated 8 million illegal workers in mostly low income jobs throughout the United States, yet 14 million Americans have little chance of finding work in this dark recession. Even so with these figures in mind, the left still wants to enact an amnesty that could cost according to the Heritage Foundation 2.6 Trillion dollars. We hear almost every day from the Liberal academia, which by passing an amnesty, including a covert amnesty called the Dream Act that the economy will grow.

How can this be, when analysts within (FAIR) Federation of American Immigration Reform that federal costs are designated at $113 Billion dollars a year and this is exempt from what states are also paying out. The Sanctuary State of California and its Liberal legislators have transformed the State in a haven for illegal alien families and carry’s a hefty price tag of $21 Billion. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) has the best grade for her stand on the illegal immigration major problem and should cite illegal Immigration as a one of the causes of Unemployment. VDARE.com’s Ed Rubenstein has been monitoring immigrant displacement of American workers since 2001. Here I want to show more evidence that immigration is linked to high unemployment .http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/041116_nd.htm

2
179 comments
Aug 10, 2011, 3:58 pm
-1 +0

This is a appraisal of competing lawmakers on their stance about illegal immigration from NumbersUSA.


Michele Bachmann, U.S. Representative from Minnesota   (B- ); Tim Pawlenty, former Governor of Minnesota (C+) ; Herman Cain, former Federal Reserve banker and businessman from Georgia (C-) ;Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts (D) ; Sarah Palin former Governor of Alaska ( D) ; Rick Perry   Governor of Texas (D-) ; Jon Huntsman, Jr., former U.S. Ambassador to China and former Governor of Utah (D-) ;Newt Gingrich, former U.S. Speaker of the House of Representatives from Georgia ( D-) Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania ( F ) ; Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico (F ) ;Ron Paul,  U.S. Representative from Texas ( F) ; Chris Christie Governor of New Jersey. (F) ; Barack OBama,  Present President from Illinois ( F-)

Here is an example of expenditures in the small state of Rhode Island that has a limited state budget but still burdened with illegal aliens. Because of the 14th Amendment, children born in the United States get instant citizenship. This is something that has become comparable to the free education and free uninsured health care that taxpayers are the recipients taxed.

This is truly stomach churning when citizens and legal citizens have no jobs, but have a family to feed.  This is encouragement on a grand scale, which epitomizes the major problem inherited from previous administrations and leftist activists in the court system?  Each year it’s so estimated that 300.000 pregnant women slip past the border patrol, with another 40 percent entering America with tourists and students.

1
179 comments
Aug 10, 2011, 3:56 pm
-1 +0

The fact is that it’s perfectly legal for a destitute, pregnant illegal alien, who presents herself as such, to receive state aid in Rhode Island. As Rep. Peter G. Palumbo (D-RI) reported, if pregnant illegal aliens show up at a Human Services office in Rhode Island, they are given the option of Blue Cross, United Healthcare, or Neighborhood Health insurance. They also receive a $450 a month debit card, and $275 a month in food stamps. According to Palumbo, the extension of such entitlement programs to illegal aliens is costing the state approximately $150-$350 million a year.

Think of the cost nationwide, specifically in Liberal controlled capitols such as Sacramento, California where the cost monthly is beyond understanding. Return to a Democrat House and senate, with Liberal entices, would bring us even more entitlements forced from Americans in taxes, to pay for the invading aliens. Rep. Michele Bachmann will end these travesties to our laws, halt small clandestine amnesties, Dream Acts, sanctuary cities and States and return this nations sovereign government to the people.  Learn more to make your vote count in the Ames Straw poll and forward to the 2012 election. Many voters think there one vote doesn’t count, but your State and federal Representative wants that vote. Call them and tell them you want an end to the illegal immigration occupation.  Investigate for yourself the costs and statistics unresolved problem at NumbersUSA, American Patrol, Judicial Watch and VDare.


The TEA PARTY has become an immense grassroots movement of tens of millions of one- mind Americans from all racial and religious backgrounds, political parties, no matter what the adverse pundits say?  The TEA PARTY members share the focused philosophy of limited government, individual freedoms, personal responsibility, “fair” free markets and above all else returning power to the States and the people. The TEA PARTY is about reforming all political parties and control, so the key principles of our Constitution, once again is the foundation of which this nation stands.

MY EARLIER BLOGS:  http://brittanicus-enoughisenough.blogspot.com/               

No Copyright. Distribute Freely.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment