President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

50%

50%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

70%↑

30%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 25, 2012 05:35 PM UTC

BREAKING: Most of Arizona SB-1070 Immigration Law Overturned

  • 18 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE #2: Colorado Independent:

“I am pleased that the Supreme Court invalidated the bulk of Arizona’s discredited anti-immigrant law…[T]his ruling makes clear that we must have one federal law that finally fixes our broken immigration system,” said U.S. Rep. Jared Polis in a prepared statement.

“The people who are blaming President Obama for Congress’s failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform are the same people who praised Arizona’s discredited anti-immigrant law as a ‘model’ or who stood on the sidelines while Senate Republicans defeated the DREAM Act in December 2010. They should be arguing with their fellow Republicans on the need for a comprehensive solution rather than casting blame,” Polis continued.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to strike down the majority of the Arizona law underscores that it is the federal government’s responsibility to enforce our nation’s immigration laws,” Sen. Mark Udall said. “It also gives further cause for Congress to act on reforming our immigration policy to be tough on lawbreakers and fair to taxpayers while keeping our borders secure. We need to work toward a bipartisan solution to our immigration challenges, while ensuring that we build adequate protections against profiling and discrimination. We cannot fully address the issue of illegal immigration with a patchwork of different laws across the country. Congress needs to act on comprehensive immigration reform.”

Democratic U.S. Sen, Michael Bennet largely agreed with Udall and Polis that the onus is on Congress to pass meaningful reform.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling on Arizona’s immigration law has made it clear that Congress has the responsibility to enact a comprehensive and practical immigration policy,” Bennet said today.

—–

UPDATE: The Washington Post:

The court ruled that Arizona cannot make it a misdemeanor for immigrants to fail to carry identification that says whether they are in the United States legally; cannot make it a crime for undocumented immigrations to apply for a job; and cannot arrest someone based solely on the suspicion that the person is in this country illegally…

[D]eliberations were a revival of the questions of federal power and states’ rights that marked the court’s deliberations about President Obama’s health-care law.

The federal government had contended that the Arizona law, with its aim of “attrition through enforcement,” undermined the federal goal of a cohesive immigration policy by attempting to shift the problem of illegal immigration to other states…

The Obama administration has taken a tough stance against the Arizona law and against most of the other states that have implemented their own laws. Its lawyers went to court early to block SB 1070, and won at both the district court level and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.

As a result, the law’s most stringent provisions have never taken effect.

—–

That’s the word from the U.S. Supreme Court this morning–here’s a link to the decision. Three out of four major provisions of Arizona’s SB-1070 immigration law, many components of which were unsuccessfully proposed in Colorado by Republican state legislators in the last two years, have been overturned. The provision that the Court did not invalidate is the “check your papers” provision requiring law enforcement to check immigration status; but “strict guidance” was given:

CNN Political Analyst Gloria Borger added that the upheld portion of the Arizona law could still be challenged in a lower court, and the ruling “limited the authority of what Jan Brewer’s police officers can do” because they can stop someone but they cannot hold somebody without contacting federal officials.

Tweet
Share

Comments

18 thoughts on “BREAKING: Most of Arizona SB-1070 Immigration Law Overturned”

  1. “As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain in the United States.”  Further, the opinion explicitly states that ICE and the DOJ have the authority to limit removals as they see fit.

    To summarize the rest of the opinion, the Court struck down 3 of the 4 provisions in SB-1070, and provided “guidance” in the form of a warning on the fourth provision.

    The state is barred from enforcing its own employment restrictions on undocumented immigrants, as the Federal government already controls this area.

    Arizona may not maintain its own registration system for immigrants or otherwise make additional documentation requirements.

    The State may not make warrantless arrests or otherwise detain undocumented immigrants, as this is entirely within Federal control and explicitly limited by existing Federal law.

    The state may still check on the status of any person normally detained in the course of police business (for now), but the Court warns that the reason behind this is that no state level court has yet ruled on just when this part of the law is permissible.  The opinion notes that if bias is not rigidly excluded from any detention/check policy, or if detentions last for an extended period of time while documentation is checked, then this provision too could be found unconstitutional.

  2. Even if officers find that a detainee is undocumented, they cannot hold them based on that finding under this ruling.  A detainee must meet the normal criteria for being held – i.e. they’re being charged with a crime.

  3. and dumps a few million into this or that SuperPAC (MT campaign finance law struck down–Corporations now your official overlords).  

    They’ll probably be able to round you up too.  I see a GOP infrastructure fix bill in the making…  

    I’m not advocating the solution in the song, just noting we have been here before.    

    1. as Solicitor General, she filed a brief before lower courts opposing the Arizona law.

      (BTW, she didn’t have to recuse herself, but she did.  See the ACA appeal, where Justice Thomas has a direct interest via his wife in the outcome, and Kagan IIRC did at least some work on defending it.  Since Thomas wasn’t recusing himself, neither did Kagan.  There’s now law against sitting on a case, only ethical guidelines.)

  5. That Chief Justice Roberts was in the majority.  Had he been with the dissenters the case would have been 4-4 and affirmed without a decision.

  6. Which reminds me- how exactly did Romney’s family immigrate from Mexico?

    We all know Obama was born in Kenya Indonesia Kapiolani, but shouldn’t we get details on the Barber Fake Cop of Cranbook.?

  7. be delivered by the U.S. Surpeme Court on the morning of Thursday, June 28, 2012, the last day of the current SCOTUS session, a date usually saved for high profile, close cases.

        1. I don’t think Obama has that kind of sway with a Supreme Court largely appointed by members of the opposite party, which has shown a willingness to be partisan.

          If they didn’t rule today, they would probably still issue a ruling before the election – in early October when they return to session.

        2. Oh, well if Obama asked for it, I’m sure that’s why they’ll do it.  It’s why they do everything else.

          Like the President, I want a ruling before the election.  October would be ok – but sooner is better.

          And I think I understand why the administration wants it too.   We can dissect the politics in early Nov, if you want, but I think Axlerod/Plouffe are right.  

      2. (IIRC, Brown v. Board of Education was kicked to a later session in one of the most famous and rare examples of the practice, so they wouldn’t have to rule even though they will almost certainly do so this time.)  The outcome was preliminarily voted upon several months ago and since then judges have been drafting opinions.

        1. was also kicked and reargued.  I can’t imagine the court doing that on this case, and frankly, think it’ll be an even rarer practice than in the past.  

  8. proud graduate of Glendale Community College*, is the logical choice for Romney’s VP.

    Female governor from a western state who has never lost an election.

    * Go Vaqueros!

    However, I would rather suspend AZ’s statehood until we can renegotiate the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo and get the border that the President ordered not the stupid deal the negotiator screwed us with.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

52 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!