[Wally_Kalbacken]

This is not particularly unusual. Look at the amicus briefs filed when the SCOTUS hears a case on a broad issue, like a takings issue (Kelo) or the recent 2nd Amendment case involving Chicago's gun ban. When such a high profile issue makes it the the Supreme Court, everyone and their uncle files an amicus brief (friend of the court brief) to attempt to persuade the court to view the case in one perspective or another. If you follow the Supreme Court you'll realize that most often, such briefs are not even read. It becomes more of a publicity stunt for the schmuck who can now issue a press release stating "I just filed an amicus brief in Smith v. Jones!"

I would expect that you will see briefs filed by MALDEF, NAACP, ACLU, etc, in such a matter. Whether the Judge bothers to read them is up to him. So, saying that they "have a voice" or "have a say" in the case is a bit of an exaggeration.

[Lmo56]

This is not particularly unusual. Look at the amicus briefs filed when the SCOTUS hears a case on a broad issue, like a takings issue (Kelo) or the recent 2nd Amendment case involving Chicago's gun ban.

Sure as heck is unusual - when was the last time you saw a sovreign state submit an amicus brief in a case that did not directly concern it?

This is a case concerning a state law that mandates the verification of immigration status, when warranted. The fact that most of the immigrants [read ILLEGALS] that will be affected are from Mexico is of no consequence. The ONLY interest that Mexico has is that [if upheld] we will be sending back Mexican citizens and they will AGAIN be a drain on Mexico's resources ...

Given that Mexico has tacitly encouraged its citizens to leave for the United States [and thus lessen the financial burden on Mexico], Mexico has NO VALID STANDING in this case ...

[raybbr]

Aren’t you equating this with Kagan’s testimony on People’s United where said, “Sing the FEC never banned a book it’s okay for book banning to be in the law”?