IMMIGRATION

Little Sympathy for Feds' Arguments in Ariz. Immigration Case

Updated: April 25, 2012 | 12:53 p.m.
April 25, 2012 | 11:55 a.m.

Charles Balogh, from Alexandria, Va., demonstrates in front of the Supreme Court in Washington, Wednesday, April 25, 2012, as the court holds a hearing on Arizona's "show me your papers" immigration law.    (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

Supreme Court justices showed little sympathy for the federal government’s argument that the “show me your papers” provision of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law is invalid, making it appear likely the high court will allow that part of the law to stand. 

(PICTURES: Scenes from Outside the Court)

In Wednesday’s oral argument in one of the most watched immigration cases in 10 years, Justice Antonin Scalia all but laughed the federal government’s lawyer out of the courtroom when he suggested that Arizona police officers were somehow deterring the federal government from enforcing immigration laws by simply asking federal officers whether a person they stop is illegal. Scalia demanded that Justice Department Solicitor General Donald Verrilli cite “any other case” in which a state law can be preempted for “interfering with an attorney general’s enforcement discretion… That’s an extraordinary statement.”

(RELATED: Live Chat with Fawn Johnson at 3 p.m.)

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the Arizona law only allows legal status checks if the police officer has pulled over a person for some other reason. The Arizona officer is simply 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.

Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who offered the most sympathy for the government’s position, pointed out to Verrilli that his argument “isn’t selling very well”—namely that a systematic system of status checks is somehow different from the current ad hoc one.

(RELATED: Immigration Case Is Just the Beginning)

The papers provision is one of four in question in the case. The others involve warrantless arrests, ID requirements, and undocumented people seeking jobs. The justices were less harsh about the government’s objections to the other provisions, making it increasingly likely that the court will rule separately on different portions of the law. 

 

 

Get the latest news and analysis delivered to your inbox. Sign up for National Journal's morning alert, Wake-Up Call, and afternoon newsletter, The Edge. Subscribe here.


Leave A Comment
The National Journal Group has the right (but not the obligation) to monitor the comments and to remove any materials it deems inappropriate.
Comments powered by Disqus
Follow National Journal
Columns
Charlie Cook: The Cook Report

Republicans Should Go Easy on Obama, At Least in Public

May 16, 2013
As a tactical matter, a subterranean campaign will score more direct hits on the president.
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

How the White House Scandals Could Hurt Republicans, Too

May 16, 2013
By enraging the base and strengthening the faction least willing to compromise with Obama, the IRS and Benghazi affairs could hurt a GOP shot at the presidency.
Norm Ornstein: Washington Inside Out

Eric Cantor’s Caucus Thwarts His Push for an Alternative Agenda

May 16, 2013
Cantor has learned that the tea-party movement he helped foster won’t fall in line behind his efforts to push an alternative conservative agenda.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Oops! Judge Slams Local Public-Private Deal

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Public Scrutiny Essential

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 17, 2013

Latest Response by Jack Gerard: Minor Policies, Major Consequences

Energy Experts

Should Washington Go Small on Energy and Climate Policy?

May 16, 2013

Latest Response by Jonathan Silver: Woefully Little, Better Than Nothing

More Expert Opinions »
Get a trial subscription to National Journal magazine.