We are still downloading, processing and compiling information on today's Supreme Court hearing on SB 1070. We would be remiss, however, if we offered no information about what actually happened inside!
There's still a lot more to go through and we won't have a final ruling until probably some time in June. Suffice it to say, the immigration movement had a tough day in court today, but things are definitely not over. And, in the words of Rep. Luis Gutierrez (D-Ill.), we will continue to fight no matter the outcome.
Our friends at Immigration Impact have a great piece up about what went down today. It's important to keep in mind that the question before the Court was, "whether federal immigration laws "pre-empt" four provisions of SB 1070 that were blocked by lower courts."
More from the Immigration Impact report:
To begin with, the government’s arguments against Section 2(B)—which requires police to check the immigration status of all persons they stop or arrest if “reasonable suspicion” exists that they are in the country illegally—were met with great skepticism by the Court. The United States had argued that requiring such status checks would disrupt the federal government’s focus on noncitizens convicted of serious crimes because it shifts the allocation of resources to non-serious offenders. As Chief Justice Roberts stated, however, simply asking the government whether a particular person is in the country illegally doesn’t require the government to initiate removal proceedings against that person.
While the questioning may suggest that the Court could lift the injunction against Section 2(B), numerous Justices expressed concern about how the provision would be applied in practice. For example, Justice Sotomayor asked how long officers would be able to detain people without violating the Constitution. Justice Kennedy asked what would happen if it took two weeks to confirm a person’s immigration status. And Justice Alito asked whether Arizona officers would always have to check the immigration status of people from states that issue driver’s licenses without proof of lawful presence.
In sum, while the argument represented the first time the Supreme Court considered the validity of SB 1070, it certainly may not be the last. The Justices’ questions made clear that even if part or all of the Arizona law is not preempted by federal statutes, it may be impossible to apply in practice without violating individuals’ constitutional rights. Given the demonstrated policy drawbacks of state immigration enforcement laws, it remains possible that other states will decline to enact copycat measures in the future. But even if states do press forward, today’s Supreme Court argument showed that legal questions about such laws will continue to occupy courts for years to come.
Look for more analysis as well as video and pictures from the rally outside the Court.