Skip to comments.Court rules against Arizona immigration law [The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals....]
Posted on 04/11/2011 10:34:07 AM PDT by Sub-Driver
Court rules against Arizona immigration law Photo 1:09pm EDT
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A U.S. appeals court upheld a preliminary injunction against parts of Arizona's controversial immigration law in a ruling released on Monday.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court did not abuse its authority by enjoining key sections of the state law that were challenged by the Obama administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Nice & quick. Good.
The 9th Circus Court of Appeals, supporting anti-Americanism for over 20 years...
Never saw that one coming!!!!!!!!!!, LOL
The most widely overturned court in the land.
God forbid we should ENFORCE the law.
The 9th sets itself up yet again for a smack down from the Supreme court. They never learn.
What do you expect from the 9th?
It is very interesting that the Pretender Executive and his lapdog Holder are on the side of the suit that prohibits AZ from enforcing a Federal Law that his Pretendess doesnt want enforced. Its the same side as Mexico which filed as a “amigo de la court”. He is avoiding performing his sworn duty...(I forgot Muslims can lie if they have to )
Obama is on the side of the illegal immigrant and putting US citizens at risk every day!
Why is this asshat Obama still strutting around the golf courses?
Actually, from what I've heard from my lawyer brother, on this issue the 9th Circus has typically been fairly sympathetic to the general sense of the Arizona law, so this is probably a real blow to its prospects.
That law was never going to survive the court challenges anyway, though. For as much as the Federal Gov't has failed in its duty with regard to illegal immigration, their arguments from the Supremacy Clause and the Constitutionally-mandated federal jurisdiction over immigration are valid and compelling.
It's probably much more effective to do as some states are moving to do ... and to bring suit against the FedGov to actually deal with the problem on the basis that their failure to do so is imposing large costs on the several states.
Why do we need court challenges? This is the peoples business; not the courts.
“Good Ideas are Unconstitutional!”
Because that's the way the system is set up in Article III, Section 2 of the United States Constitution.
Yes no suprises here. 9th circuit just doing business as usual. Get thee to the SCOTUS.
I’m shocked, I tell you! Shocked!...oh wait, it’s the 9th circuit...never mind.
I found those arguments neither valid nor compelling. The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires. States like New York that do not cooperate are actually in violation of Federal Law. That Bozo and his AG don't prosecute does not make the law invalid.
The Federal Government has already passed laws requiring local law enforcement to cooperate with the Feds in enforcing immigration laws much like the Arizona law requires.
It doesn't work both ways, though ... and that's the essence of the decision.
We agree that the Feds have failed to properly deal with illegal immigration. The question is how best to address that fact.
Arizona's approach was never going to pass muster in the courts.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government
that requires all citizens to prove
they are insured but not all
must prove they are citizens.
that is good that AZ has another avenue. If the feds won’t let them pass certain immigration legislation, then sue the fed for crime and damages by illegals. If it is the fed job to do, they’re handling it quite poorly.
Ok, so we here in AZ take all illegals in our state, including those in prison that we are paying for and not getting reimbursed for by the feds, and give them all a one man tent. Bus them all, non stop, to DC and drop them off at the White House.
If they were then the states could simply stop investigating, arresting, and prosecuting for any and all Federal crimes.
The entire point is not on all fours, and as such, it is not compelling.
If SCOTUS takes the appeal, you would be advised to bet on a reversal. In 2009, the Ninth was overturned 94% of the time.
Let me take a passing shot at that.
Doesn't that stand for the proposition that a state can take no action and is defenseless vis-a-vis losses, even above and beyond its monetary losses, when the federal government chooses not to resist foreign invaders?
Perhaps it is not believed they are invaders?
No, it merely stands for the proposition that the Constitution means what it says, when it states in Article VI that,
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
In short, that means that states cannot are not allowed to creat their own laws to supercede what the Constitution or Congress have already passed into law.
States are not totally "defenseless," because they can (and do) take cases to court against the Federal Government. Costs and damages imposed on the States by the Federal Government's failure to properly address illegal immigration, is something that can be, should be, and is being, challenged in the courts.
SCOTUS Time - before the Obamanation can appoint another Marxist, anti-American judge.
Gambling, I'm shocked.
I expected nothing else from the 9th. You don’t have to know any law to predict this court’s decisions.
I think I read somewhere that this court has had more reversals than any other.
It is considerably less predictable, however, what the SCOTUS will do, once the case reaches its desk...
A predetermined result: Ju cannot stop us, Greengo!
We knew this was coming from the 9th. No surprise here.
I said this on the other thread, but....the first thing I noticed (I haven't yet read the opinion) is that it was partly a unanimous opinion. Also, John Noonan voted to uphold the injunction. That's not a good sign. Noonan is about as conservative a legal thinker as they come and even as a sitting judge he was (and is) an OUTSPOKEN critic of Roe.
He's not a conservative shrinking violet, and the fact that he voted to uphold the injunction, probably isn't a good sing of things to come.
What a shock.
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Make it illegal in the State of Arizona for an alien to not register with the government, thus being an illegal alien (already the case at the federal level: 8 USC 1306a; USC 1304e)
Allow police to detain people where there is a reasonable suspicion that theyre illegal aliens (see the recent court case Estrada v. Rhode Island for an idea of what reasonable suspicion might entail)
Prohibits sanctuary cities (already prohibited at the federal level, 8 USC 1373) and allows citizens to sue any such jurisdiction
Reality vs. Myth: SB1070
Myth No. 1: The law requires aliens to carry identification that they werent already required to carry.
Reality: It has been a federal crime (8 United States Code Section 1304(a) or 1306(e)) since 1940 for aliens to fail to carry their registration documents. The Arizona law reaffirms the federal law. Anyone who has traveled abroad knows that other nations have similar requirements. The majority requests for documentation will take place during the course of other police business such as traffic stops. Because Arizona allows only lawful residents to obtain licenses, an officer must presume that someone who produces one is legally in the country.
Myth No. 2: The law will encourage racial profiling.
Reality: The Arizona law reduces the chances of racial profiling by requiring officers to contact the federal government when they suspect a person is an illegal alien as opposed to letting them make arrests on their own assessment as federal law currently allows. Section 2 was amended (by HB2162) to read that a law enforcement official may not consider race, color, or national origin in making any stops or determining an aliens immigration status (previously, they were prohibited in solely considering those factors). In addition, all of the normal Fourth Amendment protections against racial profiling still apply.
Myth No. 3: Reasonable suspicion is a meaningless term that will permit police misconduct.
Reality: Reasonable suspicion has been defined by the courts for decades (the Fourth Amendment itself proscribes unreasonable searches and seizures). One of the most recent cases, Estrada v. Rhode Island, provides an example of the courts refining of reasonable suspicion:
A 15 passenger van is pulled over for a traffic violation. The driver of the van had identification but the other passengers did not (some had IDs from a gym membership, a non-drivers license card from the state, and IDs issued from the Guatemalan Consulate). The passengers said they were on their way to work but they had no work permits. Most could not speak English but upon questioning, admitted that they were in the United States illegally. The officer notified ICE and waited three minutes for instructions.
The SB1070 provision in question reads:
For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or agency of this state . . . where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person.
Myth No. 4: The law will require Arizona police officers to stop and question people.
Reality: The law only kicks in when a police officer stopped, detained, or arrested someone (HB2162). The most likely contact is during the issuance of a speeding ticket. The law does not require the officer to begin questioning a person about his immigration status or to do anything the officer would not otherwise do.
Only after a stop is made, and subsequently the officer develops reasonable suspicion on his own that an immigration law has been violated, is any obligation imposed. At that point, the officer is required to call ICE to confirm whether the person is an illegal alien.
The Arizona law is actually more restrictive than federal law. In Muehler v. Mena (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that officers did not need reasonable suspicion to justify asking a suspect about their immigration status, stating that the court has held repeatedly that mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure under the Fourth Amendment).
Did you know a president can eliminate a court district?
The next non-traitor POTUS needs to eliminate the 9th district with a swipe of the pen.
“Get thee to the SCOTUS”
I only hope that when this case gets to the Supremes,
the “wise Latina” recuses herself for obvious prejudice.
Otherwise, the other justices will be accused of being racist.
It's a question of jurisdiction. While the feds can make rules for naturalization, they have no direct authority over people who do not apply for citizenship. Those people are under the jurisdiction of the State in which they reside, not the federal government.
The common law has affixed such distinct and appropriate ideas to the terms denization, and naturalization, that they can not be confounded together, or mistaken for each other in any legal transaction whatever. They are so absolutely distinct in their natures, that in England the rights they convey, can not both be given by the same power; the king can make denizens, by his grant, or letters patent, but nothing but an act of parliament can make a naturalized subject. This was the legal state of this subject in Virginia, when the federal constitution was adopted; it declares that congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization; throughout the United States; but it also further declares, that the powers not delegated by the constitution to the U. States, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states, respectively or to the people. The power of naturalization, and not that of denization, being delegated to congress, and the power of denization not being prohibited to the states by the constitution, that power ought not to be considered as given to congress, but, on the contrary, as being reserved to the states.
St. George Tucker
Bumpity bumpity bumpity Bump.
The Ninth Circus Court is like a filthy rest stop on the highway to the Supreme Court. You stop there only if you must, get in and out as quickly as possible, avoid eye contact, and scrub your hands real good.
I'm pretty sure that's not correct.
So according to this court, the State of Arizona can no longer enforce federal laws against drug trafficking since this would violate the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause? Idiots.
That quote is not pertinent to this issue.
It is agreed the federal government has higher authority, but that does not mean the state is powerless in the face of an intentional absence of federal action. The means available to a state that wishes to defend its citizens from foreign invasion is not limited to litigating the issue in a courtroom.
To say otherwise is to say that one who perceives imminent danger or actual harm to ones family is limited to calling 911, which may or may not decide to respond.
Bear in mind also that the legislation passed by the state of AZ was not intended to, and does not supersede the Constitution or federal law.
Actually, since national citizenship was originally derived from that of the State, it is quite correct.
Making a uniform rule is miles away from 'enforcing' anything.
The mode by which an alien may become a citizen, has a specific appellation which refers to the same principle. It is descriptive of the operation of law as analogous to birth, and the alien, received into the community by naturalization, enjoys all the benefits which birth has conferred on the other class.
Until these rights are attained, the alien resident is under some disadvantages which are not exactly the same throughout the Union. The United States do not intermeddle with the local regulations of the states in those respects. Thus an alien may be admitted to hold lands in some states, and be incapable of doing so in others. On the other hand, there are certain incidents to the character of a citizen of the United States, with which the separate states cannot interfere.
BTW - they are not 'immigrants' unless they file the paperwork. Until they do, they are resident aliens.
I am really shocked!
Actually, no. That's not what the Court is saying, at all. In fact, in both the decision and concurring opinion, the Court reaffirms by citing relevant federal statutory law, the role that states and municipalities can and do play in helping to enforce existing federal law.
The Court however, takes issue with the state for passing its own law on immigration enforcement, even if that law fits perfectly within the scope of existing federal law. The state of AZ is, with the passage of the statute, getting into the foreign policy business, or so the Court opines.
I suspect, reading the opinion and knowing the bios of the two judges who found for plaintiffs (it was partially unanimous), that this will be a compelling argument to the Supreme Court. I have a feeling this won't go the way some think it will go. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a unanimous opinion, depending on who writes the opinion.