Appeals court upholds Justice challenge on Ariz. immigration law

WaPo ^ | April 11, 2011 | Jerry Markon

[ColdOne]

A federal appeals court on Monday upheld a lower court decision that blocked the most contested provisions of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that a federal judge did not abuse her discretion in blocking provisions of the law that would, among other things, require police to check immigration status if they stop someone while enforcing other laws.

The decision is a victory for the Obama administration,

[Sister_T]

The 9th Circus sided with the 0bama administration. The shock! </s

[clamper1797]

9th circus of clowns

[JPG]

The 9th Circus is six rings too many.

[ssstewar]

9th Circuit out of San Francisco...What were you expecting, feathers?

[Timocrat]

The Ninth Circus. Reversals-Я-Us.

[Logical me]

Time to ignore the Courts. They have been anti-constitutional and are closer to the communists beliefs.

[JimRed]

What else would we expect from the 9th Circus?

[Steamburg]

One step closer to getting the Appeal before a real court, not the jackasses of the 9th circus.
No matter how this was decided, the case was bound for a higher court. The leftards can’t afford to be deprived of undocumented voters!

[OldDeckHand]

I haven't yet had the opportunity to read the opinion, but it's not a good sign that Justice Noonan found for plaintiffs. He's a reliably conservative judge, probably the most conservative judge on that Circuit Court to be sure and, as least as conservative as Roberts & Alito.

His defection may not bode well for the case at the Supreme Court.

[AndyJackson]

For those interested, her is the Opinion in US v Arizona

I did not read Noonan's concurrence in full, but I think his opening is a misreading of the law. He quotes the language of the statute as to its intent "The provisions of this act are intended to work together to discourage and deter the unlawful entry and presence of aliens and economic activity by persons unlawfully present in the United States"

He then concludes "It would be difficult to set out more explicitly the policy of a state in regard to aliens unlawfully present not only in the state but in the United States. The presence of these persons is to be discouraged and deterred. Their number is to be diminished. Without qualification, Arizona establishes its policy on immigration.

But Arizona has not established a policy on immigration separate from that of the US. It has established the policy of discouraging those who have been determined to be in the US unlawfully according to Federal policy.

[OldDeckHand]

"But Arizona has not established a policy on immigration separate from that of the US. It has established the policy of discouraging those who have been determined to be in the US unlawfully according to Federal policy. "

First, thanks for the link. Second, let me preface this by saying I don't necessarily agree or disagree with Noonan here. I have only skimmed the entire opinion and his concurrence specifically, but I think the point he's making is this...

Irrespective of the fact that Arizona endeavored to craft a policy that may be identical to federal policy, Noonan opines that it's not their prerogative to craft any policy as it specifically relates to immigration. I have a feeling that this argument will find favor with more than a few Supreme Court Justices.

I also was intrigued with Noonan's citation of Am. Ins. Ass’n v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396 (2003). I wasn't familiar with that case, but it is on point and instructive with respect to the "federal foreign policy" argument Noonan makes.

It will be interest to read what other conservative scholars have to say, but my initial personal reaction is AZ might be swimming against the current here. We'll see.

[AndyJackson]

Noonan's argument seems to be that, in particular, because it's national security, it cannot be a state function. I don't think this follows from the US Constitution. The militia, and their follow-on the national guard is a state function. It is very much involved with security, which is the whole point, as the Constitution states.

The issue is not about the relationship between the states and foreign powers, but the right of a state to be secure from threats recognized by the Federal government as threats.

[DMG2FUN]

The leftist aka progressives said the AZ law is tougher then federal immigration law. Which the court said cannot be allowed. Yet every state gun control law is tougher then federal gun control law. It appears the leftist aka progressives. Like to pick which rights can be violated.

[moonshinner_09]

Department of Justice sued the State of Arizona, arguing that the power to regulate immigration rests with the federal government and that the Arizona law interferes with federal laws currently in effect.?justice? ?interferes? - there is not much justice being practiced in DOJ.Fed Law under Obama is not protecting our borders - and says AZ cannot ASSIST in protecting our borders — DOJ calls that “interference - and against the law”.