;

Author Topic: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:  (Read 2759 times)

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4684
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« on: June 25, 2012, 10:35:39 AM »
0
SCOTUS handed down their ruling on Arizona's somewhat controversial SB 1070 today, it's partially upheld and partially struck down.

I think there may have been one or two discussions about this law on TNE  ;)

PDF of the ruling:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf

Quote
OCTOBER TERM, 2011

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has beenprepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
ARIZONA ET AL. v. UNITED STATES
CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
No. 11–182. Argued April 25, 2012—Decided June 25, 2012

An Arizona statute known as S. B. 1070 was enacted in 2010 to address pressing issues related to the large number of unlawful aliens in the State. The United States sought to enjoin the law as preempted. The District Court issued a preliminary injunction preventing four of its provisions from taking effect. Section 3 makes failure to comply with federal alien-registration requirements a state misdemeanor; §5(C)makes it a misdemeanor for an unauthorized alien to seek or engage in work in the State; §6 authorizes state and local officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States”; and §2(B) requires officers conducting a stop, detention, or arrest to make efforts, in some circumstances, toverify the person’s immigration status with the Federal Government. The Ninth Circuit affirmed, agreeing that the United States had established a likelihood of success on its preemption claims.

Held:
1. The Federal Government’s broad, undoubted power over immigration and alien status rests, in part, on its constitutional power to“establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, §8, cl. 4, and onits inherent sovereign power to control and conduct foreign relations, see Toll v. Moreno, 458 U. S. 1, 10. Federal governance is extensive and complex. Among other things, federal law specifies categories ofaliens who are ineligible to be admitted to the United States, 8
U. S. C. §1182; requires aliens to register with the Federal Government and to carry proof of status, §§1304(e), 1306(a); imposes sanctions on employers who hire unauthorized workers, §1324a; and specifies which aliens may be removed and the procedures for doing so, see §1227. Removal is a civil matter, and one of its principal features is the broad discretion exercised by immigration officials, who must decide whether to pursue removal at all. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), an agency within the Department of Homeland Security, is responsible for identifying, apprehending, and removing illegal aliens. It also operates the Law Enforcement Support Center,which provides immigration status information to federal, state, andlocal officials around the clock. Pp. 2–7.

2. The Supremacy Clause gives Congress the power to preempt state law. A statute may contain an express preemption provision, see, e.g., Chamber of Commerce of United States of America v. Whiting, 563 U. S. ___, ___, but state law must also give way to federal law in at least two other circumstances. First, States are precluded from regulating conduct in a field that Congress has determinedmust be regulated by its exclusive governance. See Gade v. National Solid Wastes Management Assn., 505 U. S. 88, 115. Intent can be inferred from a framework of regulation “so pervasive . . . that Congress left no room for the States to supplement it” or where a “federal interest is so dominant that the federal system will be assumed to preclude enforcement of state laws on the same subject.” Rice v. Santa Fe Elevator Corp., 331 U. S. 218, 230. Second, state laws are preempted when they conflict with federal law, including when theystand “as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U. S. 52, 67. Pp. 7–8.
3. Sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 are preempted by federal law. Pp. 8–19.
(a) Section 3 intrudes on the field of alien registration, a field inwhich Congress has left no room for States to regulate. In Hines, a state alien-registration program was struck down on the ground that Congress intended its “complete” federal registration plan to be a “single integrated and all-embracing system.” 312 U. S., at 74. That scheme did not allow the States to “curtail or complement” federallaw or “enforce additional or auxiliary regulations.” Id., at 66–67. The federal registration framework remains comprehensive. Because Congress has occupied the field, even complementary state regulationis impermissible. Pp. 8–11.
(b)Section 5(C)’s criminal penalty stands as an obstacle to the federal regulatory system. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), a comprehensive framework for “combating the employment of illegal aliens,” Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB, 535 U. S. 137, 147, makes it illegal for employers to knowingly hire, recruit, refer, or continue to employ unauthorized workers, 8
U. S. C. §§1324a(a)(1)(A), (a)(2), and requires employers to verify prospective employees’ employment authorization status, §§1324a(a)(1)(B), (b). It imposes criminal and civil penalties on employers, §§1324a(e)(4), (f), but only civil penalties on aliens who seek, or engage in, unauthorized employment, e.g., §§1255(c)(2), (c)(8).IRCA’s express preemption provision, though silent about whether additional penalties may be imposed against employees, “does not bar the ordinary working of conflict pre-emption principles” or impose a “special burden” making it more difficult to establish the preemptionof laws falling outside the clause. Geier v. American Honda Motor Co., 529 U. S. 861, 869–872. The correct instruction to draw from the text, structure, and history of IRCA is that Congress decided it would be inappropriate to impose criminal penalties on unauthorized employees. It follows that a state law to the contrary is an obstacle tothe regulatory system Congress chose. Pp. 12–15.
(c) By authorizing state and local officers to make warrantless arrests of certain aliens suspected of being removable, §6 too creates an obstacle to federal law. As a general rule, it is not a crime for are movable alien to remain in the United States. The federal scheme instructs when it is appropriate to arrest an alien during the removal process. The Attorney General in some circumstances will issue a warrant for trained federal immigration officers to execute. If no federal warrant has been issued, these officers have more limited authority. They may arrest an alien for being “in the United States in violation of any [immigration] law or regulation,” for example, but only where the alien “is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained.” §1357(a)(2). Section 6 attempts to provide state officers with even greater arrest authority, which they could exercise with no instruction from the Federal Government. This is not the system Congress created. Federal law specifies limited circumstances in which state officers may perform an immigration officer’s functions. This includes instances where the Attorney General has granted that authority in a formal agreement with a state or local government. See, e.g., §1357(g)(1). Although federal law permits state officers to “cooperate with the Attorney General in the identification, apprehension, detention, or removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United States,” §1357(g)(10)(B), this does not encompass the unilateral decision to detain authorized by §6. Pp. 15–19.
4. It was improper to enjoin §2(B) before the state courts had an opportunity to construe it and without some showing that §2(B)’s enforcement in fact conflicts with federal immigration law and its objectives. Pp. 19–24.
(a) The state provision has three limitations: A detainee is presumed not to be an illegal alien if he or she provides a valid Arizona driver’s license or similar identification; officers may not consider race, color, or national origin “except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution”; and §2(B) must be “implemented in a manner consistent with federal law regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.” P. 20.
(b)
This Court finds unpersuasive the argument that, even with those limits, §2(B) must be held preempted at this stage. Pp. 20–24.
(1)
The mandatory nature of the status checks does not interfere with the federal immigration scheme. Consultation between federal and state officials is an important feature of the immigration system. In fact, Congress has encouraged the sharing of informationabout possible immigration violations. See §§1357(g)(10)(A), 1373(c). The federal scheme thus leaves room for a policy requiring state officials to contact ICE as a routine matter. Cf. Whiting, 563 U. S., at ___. Pp. 20–21.

(2)
It is not clear at this stage and on this record that §2(B), in practice, will require state officers to delay the release of detainees for no reason other than to verify their immigration status. This would raise constitutional concerns. And it would disrupt the federal framework to put state officers in the position of holding aliens in custody for possible unlawful presence without federal direction and supervision. But §2(B) could be read to avoid these concerns. If the law only requires state officers to conduct a status check during the course of an authorized, lawful detention or after a detainee has been released, the provision would likely survive preemption—at least absent some showing that it has other consequences that are adverse to federal law and its objectives. Without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume §2(B) will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law. Cf. Fox v. Washington, 236 U. S. 273, 277. This opinion does not foreclose other preemption and constitutional challenges to the law as interpreted and applied after it goes into effect. Pp. 22–24.
641 F. 3d 339, affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.


KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS,
C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. KAGAN, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.


So.  AZ's law is rendered pretty much unenforceable, along with similar laws in GA and who gives a shit where else.  It'll be interesting to see how they rule on Sec 2 (the papers pls part) when it comes up.

PS-I told you faggots this shit would happen, hth.

Edit:  A brief, more readable breakdown courtesy of SCOTUSBLOG


Quote
Court strikes down much of Arizona immigration law

This morning, the Court handed down its decision in Arizona v. United States, the case involving Arizona’s attempt to supplement federal immigration enforcement through several state law measures.  The Court reviewed four provisions of the statute, holding that three are preempted by federal law.  Section 2(B) – which requires the police to check the immigration status of detained individuals before releasing them – is the only provision that potentially survived.

  Lyle Denniston wrote extensive pieces before and after the oral argument in the case.  In brief, in 2010 Arizona enacted a law (often referred to as “S.B. 1070,” its bill number) designed to discourage illegal immigration into the state and to facilitate the deportation of illegal immigrants who were already there.  The federal government filed a lawsuit to stop enforcement of many of the provisions of the law, arguing that the Constitution gives the federal government alone the authority to control immigration and that Arizona was treading on that exclusive authority in S.B. 1070.  (Importantly, although many have complained that the law invites racial profiling or violation of individuals’ civil rights, those arguments are not at issue in the case – the only issue is whether the law is invalid because it attempts to exercise a power over immigration that belongs solely to the federal government.)

The Ninth Circuit ordered Arizona not to implement four parts of the statute while the case was litigated.  Arizona asked the Supreme Court to review that decision, which it did, resulting in today’s decision.

Here is a rundown on the Court’s ruling with respect to each relevant challenge:

1.  Police Checks.  Section 2(B) of the law requires the police to check the immigration status of persons whom they detain before releasing them.  It also allows the police to stop and detain anyone suspected of being an undocumented immigrant.  The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated.  It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held.  The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws.  However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.

2.  State Law Crime of Being In The Country Illegally.  Although federal law already makes it illegal for someone to be in the country without proper authorization, Section 3 of the Arizona statute also makes it a state crime, subject to additional fines and possible imprisonment.  The Court held that this provision was preempted and cannot be enforced.  The Court held that Congress has left no room for states to regulate in this field, even to implement the federal prohibition.

3.  Ban on Working In The State.  Section 5(C) of the statute also makes it a state crime for undocumented immigrants from applying for a job or working in the state.   It is also held preempted as imposing an obstacle to the federal regulatory system.  Because Congress obviously chose not make working in the country without proper authorization a federal crime, states cannot enact additional criminal penalties Congress decided not to impose.

4.  Warrantless Arrest Of Individuals Believed To Have Committed A Deportable Crime.  Section 6 of the statute authorizes state law enforcement officials to arrest without a warrant any individual otherwise lawfully in the country, if law enforcement officials have probable cause to believe the individual has committed a deportable offense.   The Court held that this provision is preempted.  Whether and when to arrest someone for being unlawfully in the country is a question solely for the federal government.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2012, 11:42:22 AM by Procrustes »

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4684
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #1 on: June 25, 2012, 10:36:57 AM »
0
Also: Scalia apparently began his remarks by saying he'd uphold all of the provisions in SB1070 lol that fuckin guy!!!!!!

BubbaCat

  • Cishet White Male
  • Fagmin
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • Machiavellian House Negro
  • Awards old Anonymous Sasstronaut Goon or Ex-Goon TNE Veteran Something Wonderful
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #2 on: June 25, 2012, 12:57:06 PM »
0
This is a happy day for procrustes and his family.  Nobody will have to be split up anymore. Congrats!

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4684
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2012, 01:16:50 PM »
0
This is a happy day for procrustes and his family.  Nobody will have to be split up anymore. Congrats!


OSI

  • Cishet White Male
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 2054
  • For Dixie's Land we'll make our stand
  • Awards Classicist TNE Veteran Arizona The Gentry cold, dead hands Prepper For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Soldier Fascist Ave Maria
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2012, 10:15:18 PM »
0
Beating my head against the fucking wall over here - the hits keep on coming.

DC just ordered DHS components to refuse to take any illegals from the state on top of this.

Scalia had excellent points in his opinion piece. Seriously, how the fuck does the man who swore to uphold all the laws of the US decide to selectively pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce? Oh, when he's a nigger ruling like the big tribal nigger chief of all tribes chimping out.


Birk

  • Unperson
  • Fagmin
  • *
  • Posts: 775
  • Awards Generation Identitaire Drinkin' and Postin' For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Goon or Ex-Goon TNE Veteran
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2012, 10:56:34 PM »
0
Beating my head against the fucking wall over here - the hits keep on coming.

DC just ordered DHS components to refuse to take any illegals from the state on top of this.

Scalia had excellent points in his opinion piece. Seriously, how the fuck does the man who swore to uphold all the laws of the US decide to selectively pick and choose which laws he wants to enforce? Oh, when he's a nigger ruling like the big tribal nigger chief of all tribes chimping out.



Nothing but red letter days for Proc and co

OSI

  • Cishet White Male
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 2054
  • For Dixie's Land we'll make our stand
  • Awards Classicist TNE Veteran Arizona The Gentry cold, dead hands Prepper For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Soldier Fascist Ave Maria
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #6 on: June 25, 2012, 11:33:09 PM »
0
Holy shit, things just got full insane:

Jan Brewer to call convention to explore secession from United States:

http://www.reuters.com/2012/06/25/PM/janbrewercallsconvention

furly_ghost

  • Domestic Threat
  • ***
  • Posts: 206
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #7 on: June 26, 2012, 01:15:28 AM »
0
so gay
A toddler and a flying dog CANNOT do work intended for an adult human. I wish my parents would believe me.

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4684
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #8 on: June 26, 2012, 09:03:15 AM »
0
Holy shit, things just got full insane:

Jan Brewer to call convention to explore secession from United States:

http://www.reuters.com/2012/06/25/PM/janbrewercallsconvention

god damn you to hell!!!!!!!

Procrustes

  • Cishet White Male
  • ******
  • Posts: 4684
  • Awards Quieres comprar naranjas?
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #9 on: June 26, 2012, 09:08:40 AM »
0

DC just ordered DHS components to refuse to take any illegals from the state on top of this.



I heard about this yesterday afternoon and it's pretty fucked up.  Why do this except to send Brewer a message or something?  This goes way beyond "Chicago Politics" and into Charles Taylor territory.


Dog-O-Tron 5000v4.0

  • 5000 Posters Club
  • Fagmin
  • *
  • Posts: 8862
  • We don't need another hero
  • Awards Metal Fan Classicist You're Great...No, YOU'RE Great! Took Down an Admin old Took down a Moderator Something Wonderful Goon or Ex-Goon TNE Veteran Sasstronaut United Statesian Bah Jaysus!
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #10 on: June 26, 2012, 09:42:15 PM »
0
Holy shit, things just got full insane:

Jan Brewer to call convention to explore secession from United States:

http://www.reuters.com/2012/06/25/PM/janbrewercallsconvention

The flailing cock pisses me off less than the bitter disappointment that the headline wasn't true.

OSI

  • Cishet White Male
  • Grand Inquisitors
  • *
  • Posts: 2054
  • For Dixie's Land we'll make our stand
  • Awards Classicist TNE Veteran Arizona The Gentry cold, dead hands Prepper For Dixie's land we'll take our stand! Soldier Fascist Ave Maria
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #11 on: June 26, 2012, 10:14:41 PM »
0

DC just ordered DHS components to refuse to take any illegals from the state on top of this.



I heard about this yesterday afternoon and it's pretty fucked up.  Why do this except to send Brewer a message or something?  This goes way beyond "Chicago Politics" and into Charles Taylor territory.

As I said, not a president but the chief nigger of the nigger tribe chimping out.

Also lol got you fuckers good.

BubbaCat

  • Cishet White Male
  • Fagmin
  • *
  • Posts: 1607
  • Machiavellian House Negro
  • Awards old Anonymous Sasstronaut Goon or Ex-Goon TNE Veteran Something Wonderful
    • Awards
Re: Supreme Court Ruling on AZ's SB 1070 :allears:
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2012, 06:04:56 PM »
0
Holy shit, things just got full insane:

Jan Brewer to call convention to explore secession from United States:

http://www.reuters.com/2012/06/25/PM/janbrewercallsconvention

The flailing cock pisses me off less than the bitter disappointment that the headline wasn't true.

Same here.

Also learned never to click a link here without reading the actual url.  Was at work when I clicked on it.  Goes to show I felt too safe here. >:(