Replies

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.

So, instead, the Governor of the State of Arizona could simply declare an Executive Order on how the State of Arizona is going to go about enforcing Federal Law, yes?

"So, instead, the Governor of the State of Arizona could simply declare an Executive Order on how the State of Arizona is going to go about enforcing Federal Law, yes? "

Actually, I was just thinking that right before I read your post. Remember, this is an facial challenge, and not an as-applied challenge. IOW, plaintiffs aren't (necessarily) arguing that the enforcement of this is wrong, but that the statute is wrong, in and of itself.

I don't know why the state couldn't create some other kind of public policy narrative - like an EO, for example - that directs the same exact kind of enforcement. In fact, I think they probably could. It's the codification that has largely gotten them into trouble, at least in this court's opinion.

Now, I'm sure that down the road, that would be challenged as-applied, but from reading this particular opinion, I'm not convinced such a case would prevail.