THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH
LawCrossing Feature
Supreme Court Trashes Obama Administration’s Logic against Arizona Immigration Law On Wednesday, the majority of the Supreme Court justices clearly seemed to hold with the logic for Arizona’s immigration law rather than against it. In absence of any radical political manipulation, it is safe to assume that the lawyers on behalf of Arizona did a good job, while the Obama administration’s logic to ban the law was flimsy.
The principal argument on behalf of the Obama
•
The challenged law SB 1070 is totally consistent
administration was that Arizona’s law would lead to the
with Congressional intent. The previous judg-
‘mass incarceration’ of people who happened to stroll
ment of the Ninth Circuit in preventing key provi-
into United States and posed the risk of ‘significant
sions of the law from coming into effect based
foreign relations problems.’ Justice Scalia pointed out
upon the Obama administration’s argument that
that the ‘significant foreign relations problem’ could be
the law interferes with federal executive “priori-
alleviated by releasing the people from jail and sending
ties and strategies” was wrong. This is because
them back to their home countries.
it is the priorities and strategies of the Congress that should have been considered and not the
Paul Clement, representing Arizona and Gov. Jan
convenience of a particular executive regime
Brewer argued that being on the southwest border with Mexico, Arizona bore a disproportionate share of
Dan Stein, the president of Federation for American
costs from illegal immigration and that the state’s law
Immigration Reform told the media on the courtroom
complemented the federal government’s efforts.
battle: “It has been clear from the outset that the administration’s lawsuit against Arizona was
The arguments by Paul Clement which the Obama
about achieving political gain by ensuring that no
administration failed to contradict successfully
one enforces U.S. immigration laws. As attorneys
established the following points:
for Arizona ably pointed out before the Supreme Court … not only are state efforts to enforce U.S.
•
Stare decisis is clear that the question of wheth-
immigration law not preempted, but Congress has
er a state law is preempted does not depend
expressly welcomed the assistance of state and local
upon the policies of the Executive Branch of the
governments in enforcement.”
federal government, but upon the intent of the • •
•
Congress
The final decision of the Supreme Court, to be taken in
States still possess the authority to enforce im-
June, would decide many questions for states, including
migration laws
how much of the sovereignty guaranteed to them by
Complaints by foreign governments and officials
the Constitution and how many of the rights accorded
cannot preempt laws passed by a state legisla-
to them under the first agreements which bound the
ture
States to the Union still hold true.
Congress has consistently and repeatedly encouraged meaningful implementation of immigration
The Supreme Court case is Arizona v. United States,
laws by state and local assistance in enforcement
No. 11-182.
– exhibited by numerous federal statutes
PAGE
www.lawcrossing.com