Skip Navigation

Close and don't show again.

Your browser is out of date.

You may not get the full experience here on National Journal.

Please upgrade your browser to any of the following supported browsers:

Arizona's ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Immigration Provision Could Stand Arizona's ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Immigration Provision Could Stand ...

NEXT :
This ad will end in seconds
 
Close X

Want access to this content? Learn More »

Forget Your Password?

Don't have an account? Register »

Reveal Navigation
 

 

Analysis

Arizona's ‘Show Me Your Papers’ Immigration Provision Could Stand

+

Members of the public line up outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Wednesday as the Court held a hearing on Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law . (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

The “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s tough immigration enforcement law is most familiar to the public. It is also likely to withstand judicial scrutiny.

But it is only one of four provisions at issue in one of the most watched Supreme Court immigration cases in at least 10 years. If the Court strikes down any of the other parts of Arizona’s law, like its identification requirements or warrantless arrests, it will be a clear signal to states frustrated by immigration problems that there are limits to their authority.

 

(RELATED: Little Sympathy for Feds' Argument From Court)

In Wednesday’s oral arguments, Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government’s complaint that state police officers would violate federal immigration jurisdiction if they check the status of someone they pull over. That argument is seen by legal analysts as the weakest in the government’s case against the Arizona statute.

Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government’s lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers would somehow deter the federal government from enforcing immigration by calling federal officials to ask about a person they stop. “Arizona isn’t trying to kick out anybody that the federal government hasn’t already said doesn’t belong here,” he said. “The Constitution recognizes that there is such a thing as state borders and a state can police their borders.”

 

(PICTURES: Scenes From the Court)

Scalia’s comments are no surprise; he is an unapologetic conservative who vigorously defends states’ rights. But his impatience with the government’s complaint that Arizona is interfering with its enforcement scheme illustrates the difficulty that other justices will have in siding with the feds.

The case is being watched by dozens of other states, as well as immigration and civil-rights groups, because it will define how far state and local lawmakers can go in dealing with illegal immigrants. It will be pivotal for states like Alabama or Utah, which have passed similar immigration enforcement laws that are facing their own legal challenges.

(RELATED: Chat With Reporter Fawn Johnson)

 

But the case also will set the tone for a broader conversation about immigration in a year when Hispanics could make the difference in at least some elections. If the justices uphold Arizona’s law, it would trigger a chorus of protests from Hispanics and others who fear racial profiling. If the court strikes the law down, it will feed into states’ anger that the United States’ isn’t doing enough to fix its immigration system.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted that the Arizona law only allows legal status checks if the police officer has pulled over a person for some other reason. The Arizona officer would simply be alerting the federal government to an illegal alien’s presence. “It seems to me the federal government just doesn’t want to know who’s here or not,” Roberts said, echoing complaints from Arizona and other critics that the federal government has failed to enforce immigration law.

(PICTURES: Who Asked What at the Supreme Court?)

Roberts, also a conservative, pointed out that the high court already has given states some authority to regulate immigration when it upheld Arizona’s law requiring employers to verify the legal status of new hires. That 2011 decision will loom large over the justices as they weigh this case.

Paul Clement, who represented Arizona, played down the practical impact of the “show me your papers” provision, saying it would merely give police officers the ability to make status checks if they work in cities (like Phoenix) that don’t allow them. Police officers already have ad hoc authority to check on legal status during the course of their jobs. Similarly, Clement said, the state law’s provision allowing warrantless arrests would simply give state officers the ability to detain a person if they learn he or she is deportable but cannot be arrested for another reason. Clement, a former solicitor general, is a partner at the law firm Bancroft PLLC.

(PICTURES: Who Are the Stakeholders?)

Comments
comments powered by Disqus
 
MORE NATIONAL JOURNAL