IMMIGRATION

Little Sympathy for Feds' Arguments in Ariz. Immigration Case

Updated: May 29, 2013 | 9:40 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
Josh Kraushaar: Against the Grain

Why Democrats Are Already Jumping Aboard the Hillary Clinton Bandwagon

1:57 p.m.
Claire McCaskill's endorsement was a bow to reality: Democrats don't want to challenge Clinton in 2016.
Charlie Cook: Off to the Races

No Guarantee of a GOP Senate Majority

7:30 p.m.
The disproportionate exposure for the chamber’s Democrats is very clear. But can Republicans capitalize on their opportunities?
Ronald Brownstein: Political Connections

Why We Lack Good Privacy Guidelines

June 13, 2013
Technology innovations have served to strip away privacy. They could also be the key to restoring it.
More Columns »
Expert Opinions
Transportation Experts

Hands-Free Won't Cut It

3:22 p.m.

Latest Response by Robert L. Darbelnet: Consider the Opportunity Before Us

Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

June 17, 2013

Latest Response by Phyllis Cuttino: TBD

Energy Experts

What's the Future of Electric Cars?

June 14, 2013

Latest Response by Brigham McCown: Electric Cars and Their Dirty Secret

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