© Charles Dharapak/The Associated PressArizona Gov. Jan Brewer speaks Wednesday outside the Supreme Court after the court heard arguments about the tough Arizona immigration law. Paul Clement, who argued Arizona's case, is at right.
But the fate of other provisions that make state crimes out of immigration violations was unclear in the court's final argument of the term.
The latest clash between states and the Obama administration turns on the extent of individual states' roles in dealing with the nation's 11 million illegal immigrants. Immigration policy is essentially under the federal government's control, but a half-dozen Republican-dominated states have passed their own restrictions out of frustration with what they call Washington's inaction to combat a flood of illegal immigrants.
Parts of laws adopted by Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah are on hold pending the court's decision.
Civil rights groups say the Arizona law and those in some other states encourage racial profiling and ethnic stereotyping, and debate over such laws could have an impact on this fall's elections. More than 200 protesters gathered outside the court, most of them opposed to the Arizona law.
However, Chief Justice John Roberts made it clear at the outset of the administration's argument Wednesday that the court was looking only at state-versus-federal power, not the civil rights concerns that already are the subject of other lawsuits. "This is not a case about ethnic profiling," Roberts said.
That matter dealt with, both liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it instituted the records check and another provision allowing illegal immigrant suspects to be arrested without warrants, part of the Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. tried to convince the justices that they should view the law in its entirety, and as inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of immigrants lacking documentation.
The other provisions that have been put on hold by lower federal courts make it a state crime for immigrants not to have registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold jobs. Arizona's Republican Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was at the court Wednesday.
Arguing for Arizona, Paul Clement said the state law mirrored federal immigration law and that the state took action because, with its 370-mile border with Mexico, Arizona "bears a disproportionate share of the costs of illegal immigration."
But Roberts expressed unease with the state's focus on illegal workers. "The State of Arizona, in this case, is imposing some significantly greater sanctions," he said.
Alone among the justices, Antonin Scalia appeared ready to uphold the entire law, which he described as an effort by Arizona to police its borders.
When Verrilli said Arizona's immigration law could raise foreign policy concerns, especially with Mexico, Scalia said, "So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico. Is that what you're saying?"
Outside the courthouse, more than 200 protesters gathered. The law's opponents made up a clear majority of the crowd, chanting and carrying signs such as "Do I Look Illegal To You?" Some shouted "shame" at Brewer when she emerged from the building after the argument.
Source: The Associated Press
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter