The Supreme Court has a preliminary hearing on the state's new immigration law article cover image
News/Community Wire/Archive/Dec 15, 2011
Legacy archive / noindex

The Supreme Court has a preliminary hearing on the state's new immigration law

Republished with permission

The Supreme Court has a preliminary hearing on the state's new immigration law. On the 9th, the justices of the Federal Supreme Court secretly heard an appeal against Arizona's tough-on-illegal immigration law. American Broadcasting Company...

Local families

The Supreme Court is hearing the state's new immigration law. On the 9th, the federal Supreme Court justices secretly heard the appeal against Arizona's tough illegal immigration law. ABC News reported that the Supreme Court may announce whether to accept the appeal as soon as the 12th. The anti-illegal immigration law "SB1070" signed into law by Governor Brewer in April last year contains many provisions that severely deal with illegal immigrants, prompting states such as Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina to pass similar laws, and once again igniting the national immigration debate. The Justice Department quickly filed suit to block the law, arguing that it was unconstitutional and that the state was seeking to usurp the federal government's exclusive authority to enforce immigration laws. In April, a federal district court blocked Arizona from implementing most of the law's controversial provisions, including authorizing police to conduct immigration checks, pending a final ruling on related litigation. Governor Brewer angrily appealed, asking the Supreme Court to intervene. She claimed that the reason why Arizona took more drastic action to pass the controversial legislation was because the federal government failed to fulfill its duty to control immigration. ABC News pointed out that although the Obama administration is deeply concerned about this law in Asia, it has asked the Supreme Court not to accept the case at this time because there is currently only one appeals court to rule on this case. The Supreme Court should wait for more related cases to be handled by appeals courts in more states before intervening.

Sources and usage

This piece is republished or synchronized with permission and keeps a link back to the original source.

Editorial tags

Community WireArchiveRepublished with permission