PAGE � www.lawcrossing.com

Feature

THE LARGEST COLLECTION OF LEGAL JOBS ON EARTH

LawCrossing

The principal argument on behalf of the Obama

administration was that Arizona’s law would lead to the

‘mass incarceration’ of people who happened to stroll

into United States and posed the risk of ‘significant

foreign relations problems.’ Justice Scalia pointed out

that the ‘significant foreign relations problem’ could be

alleviated by releasing the people from jail and sending

them back to their home countries.

Paul Clement, representing Arizona and Gov. Jan

Brewer argued that being on the southwest border

with Mexico, Arizona bore a disproportionate share of

costs from illegal immigration and that the state’s law

complemented the federal government’s efforts.

The arguments by Paul Clement which the Obama

administration failed to contradict successfully

established the following points:

Stare decisis is clear that the question of wheth-

er a state law is preempted does not depend

upon the policies of the Executive Branch of the

federal government, but upon the intent of the

Congress

States still possess the authority to enforce im-

migration laws

Complaints by foreign governments and officials

cannot preempt laws passed by a state legisla-

ture

Congress has consistently and repeatedly encour-

aged meaningful implementation of immigration

laws by state and local assistance in enforcement

– exhibited by numerous federal statutes

•

•

•

•

The challenged law SB 1070 is totally consistent

with Congressional intent. The previous judg-

ment of the Ninth Circuit in preventing key provi-

sions of the law from coming into effect based

upon the Obama administration’s argument that

the law interferes with federal executive “priori-

ties and strategies” was wrong. This is because

it is the priorities and strategies of the Congress

that should have been considered and not the

convenience of a particular executive regime

Dan Stein, the president of Federation for American

Immigration Reform told the media on the courtroom

battle: “It has been clear from the outset that

the administration’s lawsuit against Arizona was

about achieving political gain by ensuring that no

one enforces U.S. immigration laws. As attorneys

for Arizona ably pointed out before the Supreme

Court … not only are state efforts to enforce U.S.

immigration law not preempted, but Congress has

expressly welcomed the assistance of state and local

governments in enforcement.”

The final decision of the Supreme Court, to be taken in

June, would decide many questions for states, including

how much of the sovereignty guaranteed to them by

the Constitution and how many of the rights accorded

to them under the first agreements which bound the

States to the Union still hold true.

The Supreme Court case is Arizona v. United States,

No. 11-182.

•

Supreme Court Trashes Obama Administration’s Logic against Arizona Immigration Law

On Wednesday, the majority of the Supreme Court justices clearly seemed to hold with the logic for Arizona’s

immigration law rather than against it. In absence of any radical political manipulation, it is safe to assume that

the lawyers on behalf of Arizona did a good job, while the Obama administration’s logic to ban the law was flimsy.