SCOTUS:AZ immigration law almost entirely reversed

[ESF]

Reversed in part and upheld in part. Will post details when I get them.

[ESF]

3 out of 4 parts invalidated. Officers can check the legal status after arrest. The rest is kicked.

WOOT!

[arborgold]

For those who are interested, here's the opinion:
www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

[ESF]

Apparently the one part that was left in place - the court left the door open for other challenges. Just said it was not unconstitutional as written, but suggested that it could be applied in unconstitutional ways.

[arborgold]

Jun 25, 2012 9:26:20 GMT -5 ESF said:

Apparently the one part that was left in place - the court left the door open for other challenges. Just said it was not unconstitutional as written, but suggested that it could be applied in unconstitutional ways.

For those who don't know the part, it was the "show me your papers" part of the law.

[ESF]

Jun 25, 2012 9:27:12 GMT -5 arborgold said:

Jun 25, 2012 9:26:20 GMT -5 ESF said:

Apparently the one part that was left in place - the court left the door open for other challenges. Just said it was not unconstitutional as written, but suggested that it could be applied in unconstitutional ways.

For those who don't know the part, it was the "show me your papers" part of the law.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog says:

The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

Interesting.

[arborgold]

Jun 25, 2012 9:30:27 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jun 25, 2012 9:27:12 GMT -5 arborgold said:

For those who don't know the part, it was the "show me your papers" part of the law.

Tom Goldstein at SCOTUSblog says:

The upshot of the SB1070 ruling is that, for now, Arizona can apply the "check your papers" provision. And the Court's opinion is a guide to the State on how to apply that provision without being invalidated.

Interesting.

I saw that too and did the confused head cock thing.

[iammalcolmx]

So people still have to show their papers?

[arborgold]

I am over the top with glee at this statement from the ruling:

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States."

[heightsyankee]

Jun 25, 2012 9:52:02 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

So people still have to show their papers?

I don't know if they have to "show their papers" but police are allowed to ask them about their immigration status. Which sucks.

[iammalcolmx]

Jun 25, 2012 9:53:12 GMT -5 heightsyankee said:

Jun 25, 2012 9:52:02 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

So people still have to show their papers?

I don't know if they have to "show their papers" but police are allowed to ask them about their immigration status. Which sucks.

The local police tried that shit around here and we raised hell. We were fighting a crime wave at the time so we were pissed they were discouraging people from report crimes.

[heyjude]

Is it my understanding that they can check after an arrest? Right? Not before? And not arrest someone because they "look mexican."

[charminglife]

:Y: how was the vote split?

[Deleted]

Jun 25, 2012 10:04:07 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Is it my understanding that they can check after an arrest? Right? Not before? And not arrest someone because they "look mexican."

that's what I thought.. Can someone confirmed? After an arrest is a lot different than during random road size traffic stop.

[marie427]

Jun 25, 2012 10:08:44 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Jun 25, 2012 10:04:07 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Is it my understanding that they can check after an arrest? Right? Not before? And not arrest someone because they "look mexican."

that's what I thought.. Can someone confirmed? After an arrest is a lot different than during random road size traffic stop.

This is what I'm wondering.

[ESF]

Jun 25, 2012 10:08:44 GMT -5 @septimus said:

Jun 25, 2012 10:04:07 GMT -5 heyjude said:

Is it my understanding that they can check after an arrest? Right? Not before? And not arrest someone because they "look mexican."

that's what I thought.. Can someone confirmed? After an arrest is a lot different than during random road size traffic stop.

This is what I'm reading too. Maybe that's not how the law is written, but that's how SCOTUS is strongly suggesting that AZ apply the law if they want to avoid it being found unconstitutional as well.

[ESF]

Little Moxie, your sig is HILARIOUS.

[pescalita]

I saw this post before the special report on NBC. Well done.

[mrshandy]

:Y:

Granted it's CNN.com, but according to them these are the provisions struck down down.

www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/politics/scotus-arizona-law/index.html

Provisions struck down included:

-- Authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense making them removable from the country.

-- Making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.

-- Forbidding those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work. That would include immigrants standing in a parking lot who "gesture or nod" their willingness to be employed.

[pixy0stix]

But ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!

Sorry, I had to.

I'm thrilled that it's been overturned. I highly doubt this is going to make any difference in AZ, though.

[debatethis]

Also, Jan Brewer is fucking insane. She's calling this a win.
"Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.'"

www.kvoa.com/news/reactions-to-supreme-court-s-sb1070-ruling/

[sandipluschris]

Until we get rid of Joe Arpaio in AZ nothing will change. He has openly stated that he will "round them up now and ask questions later". Maybe not word for word but pretty close to that.

There are too many people here who seem to think his hard stance on crime is the key to all things good. You can't argue with stupid I guess.

[ESF]

Jun 25, 2012 11:12:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

But ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!

I want to tell one of those people that enforcing that law is the illegal activity and try to watch their heads explode.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 25, 2012 11:25:44 GMT -5 ESF said:

Jun 25, 2012 11:12:03 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

But ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!

I want to tell one of those people that enforcing that law is the illegal activity and try to watch their heads explode.

oooooo... I want video tape of this.

[pixy0stix]

Jun 25, 2012 11:20:25 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Also, Jan Brewer is fucking insane. She's calling this a win.
"Of course, today's ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.'"

www.kvoa.com/news/reactions-to-supreme-court-s-sb1070-ruling/

I'm not understanding this. How is it a win if 3/4 of the law has been struck down?

[msmerymac]

Jun 25, 2012 10:05:11 GMT -5 charminglife said:

how was the vote split?

Thomas, Alito and Scalia dissented. Kagan recused herself because she was involved in the original case, I believe, before she was nominated to the court. So it was 5-3.

Scalia, I believe, was pissed and basically said something along the lines of if the original 13 colonies knew that someday, by joining a federal government, they'd have no say over immigration, they would not have done so. Might have been Alito. I just heard that part on the radio this morning.

Jun 25, 2012 9:52:02 GMT -5 iammalcolmx said:

So people still have to show their papers?

As I heard, the court tried to narrowly define the papers law. So they said that IN THEIR UNDERSTANDING, someone can be pulled over for cause, an officer can confirm their legal status, and the person can be released pending a check of their immigration status. The court basically warned Arizona that they CANNOT detain people indefinitely either because they can't confirm their legal status, or because they are not legally in the US (pending "handing them over" to ICE).

But this part could also come up again in the courts for further clarification.

[llama]

I am happy about the parts that are invalidated, but keeping perspective here, the part that was upheld is by far the most problematic and punitive part (the "heart," if you will) of the immigration law.

I do like that the "upheld" was tempered by what can only be described as a warning to Arizona to get their ducks in a row and not to go wild overenforcing the "show me your papers" provision or they may find themselves violating the constitution. As I understand it, it's not that someone has to be arrested before police ask for papers, but more a suggestion that this would be the most appropriate way to implement the law. Also, the indefinite detention thing is good news. HOWEVER, it doesn't seem like they have to immediately stop doing any of those things because the provision was technically upheld and AFAIK the suggestions in the decision are more dicta than a binding requirement on Arizona. The part of the law concerning showing documentation still remains and technically does not include any of the tempering suggested by the Court in this decision, and I have no doubt that the law will be implemented correctly or without the issues the Court warned against, so I can only predict that we'll see it in court again soon.

[sunny]

Jun 25, 2012 19:49:07 GMT -5 @publius said:

Jun 25, 2012 11:31:27 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

I'm not understanding this. How is it a win if 3/4 of the law has been struck down?

As I read it, the hot button issue with the law--being able to ID people during a lawful stop stands, but I've not yet finished my coffee and need to retread the opinion. Assuming my reading conprehension prior to coffee hasn't gone to shit I can see her spinning it as a win on that alone.

i agree that that's what they are spinning as a win. they can still ask people to show them their papers for basic traffic violations.

informally/anecdotally this has been happening for years already.