You choose, we deliver
If you are interested in this story, you might be interested in others from The Journal Gazette. Go to www.journalgazette.net/newsletter and pick the subjects you care most about. We'll deliver your customized daily news report at 3 a.m. Fort Wayne time, right to your email.

U.S.

Advertisement
Associated Press
Ana Maria Archila from Make the Road New York speaks after the Supreme Court threw out provisions of Arizona’s law on illegal immigrants.

Justices toss out much of Ariz. law

‘Show me your papers’ is modified but upheld

– A divided Supreme Court threw out major parts of Arizona’s tough crackdown on illegal immigrants Monday in a ruling sure to reverberate through the November elections.

But the justices unanimously approved the law’s most-discussed provision – requiring police to check the immigration status of those they stop for other reasons – though they limited the consequences.

Although upholding the “show me your papers” requirement, which some critics say could lead to ethnic profiling, the justices struck down provisions that created state crimes allowing local police to arrest people for federal immigration violations.

And they warned against detaining people for any prolonged period merely for not having proper immigration papers.

The mixed outcome vindicated the Obama administration’s aggressive challenge to laws passed by Arizona and the five states – Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah – that followed its lead in attempting to deal with illegal immigration in the face of federal inaction on comprehensive reform.

The administration had assailed the Arizona law as an unconstitutional intrusion into an area under federal control.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, joined in his majority opinion by conservative Chief Justice John Roberts as well as three liberal justices, said the impasse in Washington over immigration reform did not justify state intrusion.

“Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the state may not pursue policies that undermine federal law,” Kennedy said.

That part of the ruling drew a caustic dissent from Justice Antonin Scalia, who said the Obama administration just doesn’t want to enforce existing immigration law.

The decision landed in the middle of a presidential campaign in which President Obama has been heavily courting Latino voters and Republican challenger Mitt Romney has been struggling to win Latino support.

During a drawn-out primary campaign, Romney and the other GOP candidates mostly embraced a hard line on the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants, though Romney has lately taken a softer tone.

Obama said he was pleased the high court struck down key parts of Arizona’s law but was concerned about what it left intact.

“No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like,” the president said in a written statement. He said police in Arizona should not enforce the provision in a way that undermines civil rights.

“What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform,” Obama said.

In Scottsdale, Ariz., later Monday, Romney said he would have preferred that the court “give more latitude to the states” in immigration enforcement.

Romney told campaign donors that the law has “become a muddle” and that the states have more options to enforce their own immigration laws.

Earlier, he said in a statement, “I believe that each state has the duty – and the right – to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities.”

Removed from law

In his majority opinion, Kennedy distinguished the “show me your papers” provision from the other challenged parts of the law by pointing out that consultation between local and federal authorities already is an important part of the immigration system. Local and state police called on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s support center more than 1 million times in 2009 alone, he said.

Kennedy said the law could – and suggested it should – be read to avoid concerns that status checks could lead to prolonged detention.

“Detaining individuals solely to verify their immigration status would raise constitutional concerns,” he said, but he did not define what would constitute too long a detention.

A divided court struck down these three major provisions:

•Requiring all immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers.

•Making it a state criminal offense for an illegal immigrant to seek work or hold a job.

•Allowing police to arrest suspected illegal immigrants without warrants.

The vote was 6-2 against making it a state crime not to carry immigration papers and 5-3 against the other two provisions. Justice Elena Kagan sat out the case because of her previous work in the Obama administration.

Civil rights groups that separately challenged the law over concerns that it would lead to rights abuses said their lawsuit would go on.

Even with the limitations the high court put on Arizona, the immigration status check still is “an invitation to racial profiling,” said American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Omar Jadwat.

Advertisement