Posted on 04/06/2016 6:11:06 AM PDT by SandRat
PHOENIX — Arizona cannot legally deny "dreamers'' the right to drive, a federal appeals court ruled late Tuesday.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Arizona cannot decide for itself who is legally entitled to be in this country. The judges said that power rests solely with Congress.
The judges also said the policy of denying licenses to those in the Obama administration's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program ran afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. That's because the state was still issuing licenses to others in different deferred action programs.
But the court did more than slap down the Arizona practice as illegal.
Judge Harry Pregerson, writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said the 2012 policy instituted by then-Gov. Jan Brewer, was motivated to "a dogged animus'' against dreamers.
"The Supreme Court has made very clear that such animus cannot constitute a legitimate state interest and has cautioned against sowing the seeds of prejudice,'' Pregerson wrote. "The Constitution's guarantee of equality must at the very least mean that a bare desire to harm a politically unpopular group cannot justify disparate treatment of that group.''
"Our clients are very ecstatic,'' said Nora Preciado of the National Immigration Law Center, one of the attorneys who sued the state on behalf of DACA recipients. She said the dreamers, who the state has been licensing under a temporary restraining order, can now be assured "their ability to get a license is not going to go away any time soon.''
A spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich said he was still studying the ruling and had no immediate comment. She said any decision on whether to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court will have to wait.
Hanging in the balance is the right of the state to deny licenses to those in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
It allows those who arrived in this country illegally as children to remain if they meet certain other qualifications. They also are entitled to federal Employment Authorization Documents entitling them to work legally.
At last count, more than 29,000 Arizonans had qualified.
But just days before the Department Homeland Security began taking applications, then-Gov. Jan Brewer issued an executive order directing the Department of Transportation not to issue licenses to DACA recipients.
She cited a 1996 state law which says licenses are available only to those whose presence in this country is "authorized by federal law.''
Brewer argued that the federal agency really had no legal authority to permit DACA recipients to remain or work. And what that meant, she said, is they were not "authorized'' to be here.
But Pregerson pointed out that Arizona continued to issue licenses to others in different "deferred action'' programs who also had EADs even as it was denying the right to drive to DACA recipients. Pregerson rebuffed arguments that ADOT was entitled to make that distinction.
"The federal government, not the states, holds exclusive authority concerning direct matters of immigration law,'' he wrote. "The states therefore may not make immigration decisions that the federal government, itself, has not made.''
Pregerson said there's an even bigger problem with the Arizona policy: preemption.
"States may not directly regulate immigration,'' he wrote.
Yet the Arizona policy that Brewer — and now Gov. Doug Ducey as her successor — has been trying to enforce is based entirely on a conclusion by the state that DACA recipients are not "authorized'' to be in this country. And there is no such category under the federal Immigration and Naturalization Act.
"Because Arizona created a new immigration classification when it adopted its policy regarding driver's license eligibility, it impermissibly strayed into the exclusive domain of the INA,'' Pregerson wrote.
Tuesday's ruling was not entirely a surprise.
The appellate judges had previously directed a trial judge to issue a temporary injunction blocking the state policy. ADOT officials said late Tuesday that as of midDecember, the most recent figures they had, more than 17,000 dreamers had been issued licenses while the state went to court to try to take them away.
And in a precursor of his "animus'' comments in the ruling, Pregerson was on the offensive during a hearing last year as Assistant Attorney General Dominic Draye tried to convince the judges to uphold the state policy and take away the licenses.
"Does it come down to racism?'' Pregerson asked. "Does it come down to discrimination against these people? What else does it come down to?''
The questions left Draye confounded.
"Judge, I wish you wouldn't say things like that,'' he responded.
But Pregerson would not back down.
"I'm saying it because it's the truth,'' the judge responded.
That would be a real problem in Michigan where we have very strict rules regarding the issuance of drivers license. One must prove their U. S. citizenship in order to get one due to the Canadian border being a bridge away.
More lawlessness from one of our tyrannical, commie lib “courts”.
long article. unless it says something INCREDIBLE, the title says it all. insanity.
Before Lincoln, “The United States are...”
After Lincoln, “The United States is...
So now there’s a “right to drive”? Where did that come from?
Tell the court to GO POUND SAND!
A recent detailed study of the courts of all 50 states and the District of Columbia determined that 46 states and the District of Columbia adopt the position that the precedents of lower federal courts are not binding in their jurisdictions. Wayne A. Logan, A House Divided: When State and Lower Federal Courts Disagree on Federal Constitutional Rights, 90 Notre Dame L. Rev. 235, 280-81 (2014). The position of three other states is uncertain. Only one state (Delaware) defers to the constitutional decisions of lower federal courts. Id. At 281.
Federal courts have recognized that state-court review of constitutional questions is independent of the same authority lodged in the lower federal courts. “In passing on federal constitutional questions, the state courts and the lower federal courts have the same responsibility and occupy the same position; there is a parallelism but not paramountcy for both sets of courts are governed by the same reviewing authority of the Supreme Court.” United States ex rel.Lawrence v. Woods, 432 F.2d 1072, 1075 (7th Cir. 1970).
Although consistency between state and federal courts is desirable in that it promotes respect for the law and prevents litigants from forum-shopping, there is nothing inherently offensive about two sovereigns reaching different legal conclusions. Indeed, such results were contemplated by our federal system, and neither sovereign is required to, nor expected to, yield to the other.
Surrick v. Killion, 449 F. 3d 520, 535 (3rd Cir. 2006).
The United States Supreme Court has acknowledged that state courts “possess the authority, absent a provision for exclusive federal jurisdiction, to render binding judicial decisions that rest on their own interpretations of federal law.” Asarco Inc. v. Kadish, 490 U.S. 605, 617 (1989). Two justices of the United States Supreme Court in special writings have elaborated on this principle.
The Supremacy Clause demands that state law yield to federal law, but neither federal supremacy nor any other principle of federal law requires that a state court’s interpretation of federal law give way to a (lower) federal court’s interpretation. In our federal system, a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.
Lockhart v. Fretwell, 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring). See also Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U.S. 452, 482, n. 3 (1974) (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (noting that a lower- federal-court decision “would not be accorded the stare decisis effect in state court that it would have in a subsequent proceeding within the same federal jurisdiction. Although the state court would not be compelled to follow the federal holding, the opinion might, of course, be viewed as highly persuasive.”).
Hmm - I was always taught Driving was a priviledge and not a right.
WE THE PEOPLE need to demand that these clown “judges” show us where the “right” to drive is guaranteed in the U.S. CONSTITUTION. Driving is a privilege, NOT A RIGHT. The FERAL government cannot create laws given to the states by the Constitution.
The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When is someone going to actually stand by the original intent.
On the subject of drivers licenses.
Federal law forces states like Maryland and CA to mark the drivers licenses of illegals with ‘Not for use as a Federal ID’ for illegals.
More-so, they could mark their license plates too and see how the courts like that.
As Rush Limbaugh has often said, "words mean things." We have to stop letting the left control the language of the debate, something they do very skillfully. "Dreamers" makes it sounds like these are just sweet, innocent, happy-go-lucky people whose fondest wish is to become an American citizen. Who could be mean to someone like that? They are not "Dreamers", they are ILLEGAL ALIENS!
This seems to be where citizens could react ...T&F
How come they have a “right” to drive, but for me driving is a “privilege” and can be revoked for a host of administrative reasons (such as not carrying insurance or blowing off a traffic ticket).
“”Does it come down to racism?’’ Pregerson asked. “Does it come down to discrimination against these people?”
Well, yes. I does come down to discrimination against people who are in this country ILLEGALLY. And it has nothing to do with “racism”. How in the heck do we have judges who think they can divine that the intent of state legislatures is based on “racism”, when they are actually trying to protect the rights of their US citizens?
And, by this logic, this court could now go on to justify prohibiting US states from “discriminating” against other criminals of various categories. All these judges would have to do would be to divine that other laws were based on “racism” and throw out those laws as well. So, basically, under this court, there is no rule of law.
The right to not restrict travel is a right (for American citizens). Operating a motorized vehicle is a privilege authorized by the state that has nothing to do with the right to travel freely. Drivers licenses only pertains to the operation of a motorized vehicle.
The judges said that power rests solely with Congress.
**********************************8
That is correct, which is why DACA is illegal and those illegal aliens are still illegal aliens.
A driving license is a privilege, not a right.
A State has every right to determine who it issues a driving license to.
It is not a Federal issue, and has nothing to do with immigration law.
AZ should appeal, and tell the Federal court it has no jurisdiction in the matter and to go pound sand.
What is the court going to do about it?
If unelected judges can determine all of these so-called rights, then we don;t need legislatures, do we?
And once more, Hispanics are NOT a race, so this has nothing to do woth racism.
I have come to realize that the American justice system is the most horribly corrupt and compromised component of our government, even outshining the political arm, if that were possible.
The federal government is charged constitutionally with explicit responsibility for protecting the states from invasion and domestic insurrection, and guaranteeing to them a republican form of government.
If the federal government fails to defend the states, and the citizens of the United States, those states and their citizens have the inalienable, natural, indefeasible right and responsibility to protect themselves.
As an aside, some years ago, the head of Florida’s state police said something that really shook up the establishment.
He said that licensing makes no difference in the quality of drivers. At least 500,000 people drove (at the time) in Florida without a driver’s license, and they were no better or worse drivers than licensed drivers.
However, he noted, it took so much time and effort from his agency to police them up that it was both preventing his officers from stopping bad and dangerous drivers, but also from responding quickly to accidents and hazardous driving conditions.
As far as he was concerned, driver’s licenses should be discontinued, as unnecessary, and very expensive to both the state and drivers. In that people need ready identification, the state should still issue ID cards, which would substitute for driver’s licenses out of state.
Of course, state leaders were horrified, and told him to shut up.
But since that time, it has been noted that for many years, everyone *assumed* that licenses were essential to own and carry guns. But 8 states now have constitutional carry, and it has been proposed in 23 other states. And the sky did not fall down.
What matters is that people are good drivers or not, and have enough insurance to protect themselves and others in an accident, not permission from the state to drive, even if it doubles as an ID card.
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.