A federal judge has set the stage for a new challenge to Arizona’s immigration law if the U.S. Supreme Court rejects the one it has before it now.
In a 20-page ruling, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton said that various Arizona residents have legal standing to challenge the 2010 statute. In each case, the judge said they made a showing that they could be personally affected — and adversely — if the state begins enforcing the law.
Bolton also rebuffed a bid by attorneys for Gov. Jan Brewer to preclude these challengers from seeking class-action status to represent all those who might be victims of discrimination under the terms of SB 1070. The judge will hear arguments on that this coming week.
The ruling, issued Tuesday, comes as the nation’s high court is weighing arguments by the Obama administration that four key provisions of the state statute are preempted by federal law. Bolton had agreed with their arguments nearly two years ago when she blocked Arizona from implementing those sections, a decision upheld by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
If the Obama administration wins, the provisions go away and that’s the end of the matter.
But if the justices let some sections take effect — and there were indications at last month’s hearing they might — then this case becomes one of the new battlegrounds over the legality of SB 1070.
Attorney Dan Pochoda of the American Civil Liberties Union, whose organization is representing some of the challengers, said Bolton’s new ruling provides an entirely new opportunity to present a whole new set of arguments about why SB 1070 is unconstitutional. He said arguments range from the likelihood of racial profiling to whether the time spent questioning someone about legal status amounts to an illegal arrest.
This order does not address the merits of those claims.
Instead, it comes on a request by attorneys for the governor that she declare the individuals who have filed suit lack standing to challenge the law in the first place. The ruling allows them to make those claims.
While the lawsuit is being brought by various organizations like Friendly House and Coalicion de Derechos Hermanos, it specifically names individuals as plaintiffs as they would be the ones most immediately affected by SB 1070. These individuals said they fear they will be targeted because of their physical characteristics or their limited ability to speak English.
Brewer’s attorneys called that “speculative.” But Bolton disagreed, saying the very nature of the provisions of SB 1070 make it clear that those factors are likely to make them targets.
For example, one provision requires law enforcement officers to check the immigration status of all they have stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion they are in this country legally. She said because that section applies every time someone is stopped, the plaintiffs are likely to be subject to allegedly unconstitutional immigration investigations “even if they are stopped only for suspicion of a minor traffic violation and even if they have not actually committed a crime.”
Bolton also said the argument that the chances of someone who isn’t breaking the law being stopped is undermined by claims — and that is all they are at this point — by several of the individuals who said they have been approached or stopped by police in the past “while engaging in regular daily activities, including driving a car and riding a bicycle on a roadway, and that in some cases this contact with law enforcement resulted without any violation of the law.”
The judge also noted there are other sections of the law which are aimed at day laborers, including making it a crime to enter a vehicle stopped in the street to work elsewhere and another which says it is illegal for someone not in this country legally to seek work in Arizona. One of the challengers, who said he is a legal U.S. resident, said he has sought work on street corners in the past and would like to do that in the future “but that he is worried that he will be detained by police.”
“Soliciting work in a public place is conduct arguably affected with a constitutional interest,” Bolton wrote. The judge said because this person intends to continue soliciting work, there is a “credible threat” the law would be invoked against him, giving him standing to sue.
Gubernatorial press aide Matthew Benson said Brewer believes the claims should have been thrown out if for no other reason than the provisions of SB 1070 they are challenging have not yet taken effect, having been placed on hold by Bolton in that Obama administration case.
“So there’s no injury at this point,” he said.
“Obviously the federal judge disagreed and that’s unfortunate,” Benson continued. “But it doesn’t change the complexion of the issue.”
There are several other separate challenges to the law pending before Bolton, all at different stages in the legal process. Bolton has purposely proceeded slowly on each of them, waiting for a definitive ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court on the ability of states to enact restrictions aimed at illegal immigrants.
Rational Human posted at 8:07 pm on Fri, Jun 1, 2012.
Voter, it would be Hispanic citizens who seek the extra political power associated with higher numbers of their kind who would be most likely to invent situations where they could challenge or sue for racial profiling that they say SB1070 would encourage. No matter what anyone say or thinks, almost all people favor their own kind and would like their own kind to dominate all others. We call it racial prejudice. It's not something Blacks and Hispanics like to admit about themselves, but it's just as true about them as it is for Whites, and some say even more so. It's the reverse of what is said of White people. They say we Whites want SB1070 because we want to keep our numbers higher than every other group to maintain power in this country. We really would like all people who are citizens to respect our borders and to help keep out undesirables. This importation of poverty and intellectually inferior people has got to stop. It is destroying Calif. and we here in AZ do not want that for our state.
Engaged Voter posted at 5:27 pm on Fri, Jun 1, 2012.
Serious question here - Why would a LEGAL ARIZONA RESIDENT challenge (or even care about) a law that concerns people who sneak into our country illegally?
Discounting family members of illegal aliens, of course!
Brittanicus posted at 7:15 pm on Thu, May 31, 2012.
The pro-Constitutional TEA PARTY is beginning to show their muscle, as incumbents are losing their seats. Senator Richard Lugar of Indiana lost his entrenched place, to a Tea Party State Treasurer Mourdock, who is displaying his mettle, by stating that he will fight to secure our borders and ensure that taxpayer dollars are only spent on those legally allowed to live in this nation. Lugar had a long record of fighting aggressively for amnesty for illegal immigrants and was a primary sponsor of the DREAM Act, which would have fast-tracked amnesty for millions of illegal immigrants nationwide. The liberal Democrats have a campaign to undermine the TEA PARTY membership, which the political group is fading away, when actual fact is the numbers are climbing into the millions. Do you want to fight to keep more of your tax money being confiscated in continually coddling either the 20 million plus illegally immigrants settled here, or the millions more that still locate a way to slip into America.
There are a number of measures regular voters can press for?
One: Join your local Tea Party and unseat all the tired incumbents and elect fresh Tea Party leadership. Remove all Senators and House Representatives, who are pro-illegal immigration corrupted by the special interest groups. We should start with a clean slate and investigate the current records of bad politicians-both federal and state at the web site of ALIPAC.
SCRUTINIZE BOTH PARTIES AS THEY HAVE THEIR OWN RANCID AGENDAS? REPUBLICANS CHEAP LABOR! DEMOCRATS MORE VOTERS! FURTHER WITH THE ONCOMING ELECTIONS IN FULL SWING, WE SHOULD BE WARNED THAT NON CITIZENS ARE VOTING AND WILL VOTE IN FEDERAL, STATE, COUNTY AND MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. THE ONLY WAY TO STARVE THIS OFF FROM FRAUDULENT VOTING, WHICH WILL NOT COME AS NO SURPRISE IS THE EPICENTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. ONLY THE ISSUANCE OF A FREE GOVERNMENT PICTURE ID WILL OUR DEMOCRACY FREE OF FRAUD.
Two: Demand that House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and Dave Camp of Michigan, who is Chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee. Americans must insist these lawmakers stop blocking the 50-state H.R.2885 - Chairman Smith's 'Legal Workforce Act’. The E-Verify bill, should concern every jobless American residents, as if put into practice on a national scale would reject illegal foreign workers.
Stop blocking the E-Verify ‘The legal Workforce Act’ business program, to detect unauthorized workers, so they can be identified and removed.
Three: Demand that the Congress amend the ‘Birthright Citizenship’ so that no baby born in the United States receives immediate citizenship unless one parent is a U.S. citizen or a naturalized citizen. In addition stop Chain Migration as under the present law, the child more or less cements, the rest of the immediate family as a foothold. Thereby adding even more financial pressure on state taxpayers as UNFUNDED MANDATES, to pay not only for the 400.000 babies, smuggled through borders or arrive undetected at international airline arrivals. State Government says little about the (2009) $113 Billion price tag, extorted by the IRS in catering to the families of illegal aliens. No doubt in most American’s mind that the dollar figure has raised by now and until the amendment is passed, the payout will escalate?
Four: Stop our Internal Revenue Service issuing child credit money for children who do not even reside in the United States. In fact stop this use by illegal aliens collecting $4.2 Billion dollars of taxpayers’ money, for persons who have no legal status to be in the United States.
Five: No more mass importation of poorly skilled foreign nationals and those only STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) workers need apply.
Six: NO more TAX & SPEND government and begin the reduction of federal agencies.
Seven: Build the double layer fence, as previously designed the Bush’s administration as the 2006 Secure Fence. To run from San Diego, CA to Brownsville, Texas with every mile festooned with razor barbed wire. In a new detection innovation reporters watched as five people walked north from the Mexican border toward the underground sensor system. When they got within about four hundred feet an alarm sounded and a Google map page popped up showing where the "intrusion" was detected. This Sonic Barrier is exemplary at even detecting low-flying ultra light aircraft, the type now being used by smugglers to haul drugs into the U.S. across the border. Mike King of Border Technology, Inc., is the inventor of the Sonic Barrier (they call it IDENTISEIS™), saying that the system is continuing to undergo testing and development, but it is seemingly more near perfection, than the old sensing units.
Eight: Punish States, counties and cities, which are allowing illegally ordinances and statutes relating to Sanctuary Cities? Cut off federal funding to these locations and prosecute all those responsible for these acts. Criminal aliens are settling in these places and have killed, maimed and molested children.
Don’t be confused by the liberal diatribe from the Liberal /Democrat mainstream media, as they are firmly impressed on pushing Obama’s plans of Socialist doctrines. We cannot keep importing more and more poverty encouraged by the government welfare placards, that if you can enter illegally, the taxpayers will care for you, from birth to the grave? We are being overwhelmed by persons who cannot speak English; therefore we spend a billion annually on translators. We pay for their children’s schooling to K-12 and in many cases college. Then the medical cost for the whole family, who eventually sneak through holes in the border or buy a airline ticket. Then there are no real true dollar figures, for loss of wages or under the table illegal workers; m any real truths are hidden from the public eye.
Start by implementing mandating E-Verify business verification computer program. It is the most effective, simple immigration enforcement identifier, along with the ‘Secure Communities’ police apprehension application to fingerprint arrests and forward them to Ice and other agencies, that will deter any illegal foreign national from stealing the millions of American jobs. The usual suspects, including high-pressure, pro illegal immigrant groups are out to eliminate these powerful programs, since enforcement of immigration laws. IN A DELIBERATE MOVE OR NOT, IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN THAT LEGISLATORS IGNORED THE ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION INVADERS, BY NOT CLARIFYING THAT ILLEGAL ENTRY AS A FELONY? HOWEVER I WILL KEEP ON REMINDING VOTERS, IT’S TAXPAYERS MONEY THEY ARE SPENDING ON FOREIGN NATIONALS, ESPECIALLY IN THE SANCTUARY STATES. E-Verify has proved its merit which many treasonous lawmakers never predicted it would catch-on, with any credibility. Even now it has a success rate of 98 percent and 300.000 honest business owners are now using the program. Thus they are saving themselves from ICE audits, large fines, asset loss and even a term in prison.
Now Politicians are trapped with E-Verify because the American citizenry are fully perceptive of its use. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be on our guard, with pro-illegal immigrant legislators such as Nevada’s Sen. Harry Reid, California’s Governor Jerry Brown who want to tax their legal residence even more, to subsidize the illegal alien occupation in their states.
samkat posted at 6:03 pm on Thu, May 31, 2012.
SS: What percentage of the Hispanic population is illegal? According to the census, approximately 16% of the population is Hispanic but there was no distinction as to how many are illegals which means the 16% is not indicative of the number eligible to vote. The push by the pro illegals is beginning to awaken the sleeping giant which means Obama stands to lose a lot of White support this round.
One of my biggest beefs with you folks is the rudeness you exhibit in speaking Spanish instead of English everywhere you go. If you were patriotic, you would actually act like you were a loyal citizen as opposed to giving the impression that you are a Mexican national. I have no problem with people speaking another tongue but when I run into families speaking Spanish to their young children and the children responding in Spanish, I have to wonder where their allegiance lies. Rich speaks French, German, Italian and English. I speak Japanese, Thai and Korean as well as English. Knowing another language is not a bad thing and if done in the proper setting, it is perfectly acceptable.
My son-in-law and daughter-in-law are Hispanic and they place themselves as Americans first and Hispanic as their heritage as an after thought.
sacredsex posted at 2:13 pm on Thu, May 31, 2012.
HIspanic Vote 100% Full Force 2012
sacredsex posted at 2:13 pm on Thu, May 31, 2012.
i love bolton, she Rocks
TeaPartyPatriot posted at 8:08 am on Thu, May 31, 2012.
It's pretty obvious that democrats, liberals, Hispanics, and various liberal organization are willing to spend a great deal of time and money fighting the implementation of SB1070, a law who's main purpose is to ferret out any and all criminal invaders who reside in our state. Since any criminal invaders that this law helps to identify wont automatically be deported by a federal government that has steadily refused to do it's job as outlined by congress, I fail to see why they are trying so hard to fight it. Could it just be that the criminal invaders just want to remain in the shadows and not be identified? That a few Hispanics might be inconvenienced seems a rediculous reason to fight it. Why are Americans of Hispanic descent trying so hard to protect criminals that hide in there communities? They should be ashamed of their actions. Instead they arrogantly demand that they shouldn't be even slightly inconvenienced even though they are the main reason it is so difficult to ferret out these criminals. So lets not call these people illegal aliens. Lets start calling them who they really are, criminals and invaders.
az2008 posted at 11:10 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
The pandora's box opened by this ruling is that individuals have standing if they're adversely affected. Every law adversely affects someone. Bolton has circumvented constitutional democracy where the people can change laws (after overcoming various hurdles meant to temper the fickleness of the people), replacing it with the will of the judiciary (making it easy for anyone "adversely affected" to find a court to invalidate the will of the people).
This is substantial. Absent Bolton's fast-track method, people who oppose this law would have to work toward electing politicians friendly to their view. Or, subject themselves to popular opinion via a referendum (waiting up to 2 years while the deliberative process to take place). Or, spend potentially many years working the federal legislative process.
In all those cases it's about *politics*. Giving and taking, building alliances, compromising to get what you want. Most importantly: taking time for the fickle will of the people to mature (fizzle out as passions fade -- or mature into rational, realistic and deliberative choices).
With Bolton's decision, find a sympathetic judge to rule in your favor. You don't have to build a majority of like-minded fellow citizens (compromising in the process, resulting in realistic politics). "I'm adversely affected... and if the judge is of the same opinion I am, two people can invalidate the will of the majority."
fae4now posted at 10:39 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Rich,
If there are any limits to reasonable suspicion or probable cause in this state I'd like to see them! In AZ you can have bird droppings on your windshield, be stopped for the 'probable cause' of an 'obstructed view'. Don't sneeze because that could be interpreted as 'reasonable suspicion' to believe you have a nose full of cocaine.
Next you'll be asked to step out of the vehicle for a roadside sobriety test.
Should you voice any concern such as "What's this all about?" you may find yourself immediately thrust into handcuffs and hauled off for invasive tests and chemical analysis of your person.
Never mind if they don't find anything. It's a numbers game. For every 100 people they test they're bound to find something in someone's system (prescription or illegal).
The Trib reported in February that 1700 people went to jail in Mesa last year this way.
Thank you for indulging my 'off topic' rant but those two phrases appear to be a joke in this state! I find it a huge violation of our civil rights.
bblade50 posted at 9:55 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Every body is bitching about this law, if wasworked on forty or fifthy years ago this law would not be around. The democrates ( not all ) have tried to push action on this where most republicians have stopped iot. Even John McCain before he starting running in o8 had been working on a bill to allow change, but he was stopped by the GOP and their bosses ( the 1% ). If you what change change the people in office who keep stop any action on fixing this ( FED ) law starting in November.
Rich posted at 9:38 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Actually, the law opens Pandora's box. There are limits to "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause" that SOCTUS won't answer because they were not originally challenged. For example, I speak French, German and Italian and look like a grey haired WASP. If I am speaking German to a German friend who is visiting me, can I be asked to justify being an American? The law skirts so many questions that it will be decades before it's out of the courts, and billions. Aside from being an employment law for lawyers, it isn't much and typical of the simple minded anarchy we live in which is more expensive in the long run than Mexico moving in.
samkat posted at 8:17 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Bolton sounds like a liberal kind of judge. Maybe she is looking for an appointment to the SCOTUS in the event Obama is lucky enough to get reelected.
Juggernaut8000 posted at 5:19 pm on Wed, May 30, 2012.
Adversely affected? How about all the people who are adversely affected by the hordes of criminal illegals that reside in this State?
Why can't the democrats just come out and say they want the illegals here to secure the hispanic vote and quit with the other ridiculous reasons.