Posted Oct 21, 2011, 2:32 pm
A federal judge has tossed out Arizona's counter-suit against the U.S. government over the state's SB 1070 illegal immigration law.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton dismissed the state's claim against the federal government over the law on Friday.
The decision "is frustrating but not entirely surprising," said Gov. Jan Brewer in a press release. "Remember that Arizona did not choose this fight. Our counterclaim followed the federal government’s almost unprecedented decision to sue the state over SB 1070."
Brewer had asked the court to order the U.S. government to take additional steps to control the border.
The feds responded by asking the court to dismiss Brewer's claims because judges shouldn't rule on political matters.
Friday, Bolton dismissed Arizona's counterclaims in the suit, saying they were political questions or otherwise not reviewable by the court.
Last year, Bolton ordered Arizona not to enforce many provisions of SB 1070, leading to a long series of appeals by the state.
From the order: "Arizona asserts the following five counterclaims: failure and refusal to achieve and maintain “operational control” of the Arizona-Mexico border (Count One); failure and refusal to protect Arizona from invasion and domestic violence (Count Two); abdication of statutory responsibilities (enforcement of the federal immigration laws) (Count Three); declaratory relief regarding State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (“SCAAP”) reimbursement obligations (Count Four); and declaratory relief under the Tenth Amendment (Count Five)."
Bolton dismissed Counts Two and Five because they involve issues already decided by binding precedent, she wrote in her decision.
Concerned about keeping quality reporting alive in Tucson?
A metro area of nearly 1 million deserves a vital & sustainable source of news that's independent and locally run.
Support TucsonSentinel.com with a contribution today!
Count One was dismissed because the state "failed to state a claim": "Arizona cannot challenge the sufficiency of the government’s ongoing, non-final actions by attempting to frame its claims as a challenge to agency action wrongfully withheld or unreasonably delayed."
Count Three was dismissed because, while the state "may disagree with the established enforcement priorities,
Arizona’s allegations do not give rise to a claim that the Counterdefendants have abdicated their statutory responsibilities."
Count Four was dismissed because "Arizona asks the Court to interpret the statutory framework for SCAAP reimbursements without asserting that the federal government has violated any right or explaining how a declaration by this Court would settle any dispute between the parties."
Brewer's statement
Today’s U.S. District Court decision to dismiss Arizona’s suit against the federal government is frustrating but not entirely surprising. It is but the latest chapter in a story that Arizonans know all too well: the federal government ignores its Constitutional and statutory duty to secure the border. Federal courts avert their eyes. American citizens pay the price.
Remember that Arizona did not choose this fight. Our counterclaim followed the federal government’s almost unprecedented decision to sue the state over SB 1070. Despite today’s decision, the core of Arizona’s counterclaim holds true: the federal government has failed in its Constitutional and statutory duty to secure the border, failed to protect the State of Arizona against the harms of illegal immigration, been negligent in reimbursing the state for its costs to incarcerate illegal aliens and pre-empted the state from protecting the health and welfare of its citizens.
Interestingly, neither the federal government nor the federal court dispute that the people of Arizona have been injured as a result of the rampant illegal immigration that our nation has allowed to occur. Instead, the court says this is a political matter beyond its oversight. When it comes to illegal immigration, however, the political process has been an unmitigated failure for decades. Arizonans deserve better.
This decision makes it even more critical that the U.S. Supreme Court hear our defense of SB 1070. If the courts won’t hold the federal government accountable – as today’s decision makes clear – then states like Arizona need clarity in terms of the authority they have to combat illegal immigration.
3 comments on this story
how much did Brewer and Horne’s political grandstanding escapade cost AZ in time and expenditures this time?
this Republican joke of state leadership would be funny if it weren’t so damaging and embarrassing.
We need to push the two constitutional anti-invasion mandates.
The word “shall” is a mandate.
The US ORGANIC LAW in the US Constitution provides two mandates for States and the Union of States to protect the Union from invasion. By extension it is the concurrent responsibility of every political subdivison of the State, i.e. every person sworn under oath to protect the State and US Constitution, is constitutionally responsible to detect, halt, hinder, report illegal aliens and invaders, regardless of them being military or civilian.Any aiding, abetting or comfort for illegal aliens is a violation of their oath and punishable as a misdemeanor or felony, which ever may apply. These sworn employees who violate their oath, and un-sworn civilians,can and should be held accountable for conspiracy of the crimes committed by the aliens.
Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3
“No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
PARAPHRASED: “EVERY State shall, without the Consent of Congress engage in War, IF actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
Article 4 Section 4
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
PARAPHRASED:
“The STATES OF THE UNION shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”
Meh, I’m not surprised either. Bolton is the textbook definition of “activist judge”. She is a disgrace to her profession.
Before the governor even signed the law, I knew that it winding up in the Supreme Court is inevitable. SCOTUS isn’t exactly batting 1.000 over the last few years, but I’m holding out hope they’ll get this one right.
I just can’t wrap my head around the concept for the federal government being allowed to ignore their mandates responsibilities, and the state governments just being expected to follow suit just because. It just doesn’t work.