Posted on 08/09/2005 2:12:35 PM PDT by Graybeard58
PHOENIX - A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to block implementation of a portion of a voter-approved Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the plaintiffs challenging the public benefits provisions of the law had no right to sue.
The law, which appeared on Arizona's 2004 general-election ballot as Proposition 200, bars illegal immigrants from receiving certain public benefits and makes it a crime for public employees to fail to report undocumented immigrants who seek the benefits outlined in the legislation. A separate provision requires people to show proof of citizenship when registering to vote.
The plaintiffs had asked the appellate court to rule that U.S. District Judge David Bury had abused his discretion by refusing to grant a preliminary injunction until a trial is held to determine whether the benefits prohibition is constitutional.
The provisions dealing with voters weren't affected by the challenge.
The three-judge panel's order said the plaintiffs hadn't demonstrated they were hurt by implementation of the law or been charged or specifically threatened with prosecution. Also, there was no allegation of a First Amendment injury that would lower the legal hurdle in front of the right to sue, the order said.
Supporters argued that the initiative approved by voters in November was needed because Arizona, the busiest illegal entry point on the country's southern border, spends millions of dollars annually to provide food stamps, welfare and other social services to illegal immigrants.
They said the law would help curtail fraud by requiring people to produce proof of immigration status when obtaining certain government services, and would punish state workers who ignore illegal applicants. They also maintained it would safeguard the election system.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund appealed Bury's order and argued that the law is unconstitutional on the grounds that it usurps the federal government's power over immigration and naturalization.
Bury ruled that the plaintiffs had little chance of success in their lawsuit challenging the law's constitutionality.
In separate litigation pending in state court, Proposition 200 supporters are challenging a trial judge's March decision to throw out a challenge to state Attorney General Terry Goddard's legal opinion that the law's benefits provision applies only to a small number of welfare programs.
Can't we outlaw the 9th circuit.
Judges in Kalifornia shouldn't make rulings for the rest of us.
This time, they ruled in favor of the good guys.
Read the story, not just the headline.
A broken clock. . .
Reports from the nether regions call for snow.
Looks like they stumbled across a right answer for once.
Am I reading this wrong or are you? The whole thing reads like a running double negative, so I could be wrong.
"A federal appeals court on Tuesday refused to block implementation of a portion of a voter-approved Arizona law that denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants."
It sounds like they (the court) refused to block a law that "denies some public benefits to illegal immigrants".
Is that not a good thing to you?
Well, not quite. All they did was say that the plaintiff had no standing. Once they come across someone who does have standing, then we'll see what they have to say about the law.
good point....
and I think its only a matter of time until this issue ends up in the Supreme Court realm...
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
You are all correct. It is late in the day and I have been looking at this screen too long ( actually programming today :). I am going home.
Smart decision from the Ninth Circus, for a change.
Didn't the 9th Circuit rule that California's Prop 187 was unconstitutional?
yeah, but they happen to coincide in this case....
Yes, but it obviously wasn't to the person that wrote the story. Hence all the double negatives. ;-)
CITIZENSHIP no longer matters. All that matters is RESIDENCY.
Illegal Immigrants are RESIDENTTS of the state and therefore are entitled to any and all state and federal benifits.
There are agencies that make sure they receive them all too.
This will be taken to a higher court and voided, just like Prop 187, OR they will take each piece to the courts until this law is recinded.
No way will the libs stand for this ruling.
Looks like they ruled right for once!
I for one am tired of watching emergency rooms close down because the illegals use them for free and the ER's go bankrupt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.