CBS News: Judge Issues Injunction Blocking ‘Parts’ of Arizona Law; Updated
**Written by Doug Powers
So far all I’ve read on this is a Twitter post from CBS Radio:
What “parts” are blocked is still unknown.
**Written by Doug Powers
Twitter @ThePowersThatBe
***
Update (by MM):
Fox reporting that the “lion’s share” of the law will go into effect tonight.
Awaiting reaction from Gov. Brewer.
Via Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:
Federal judge Susan Bolton has issued a temporary restraining order against the most controversial portions of the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, while keeping much of it in place. The requirement for police to check immigration status has been suspended, however, pending a full review by the court at a later date..
…This point seems key. On page 14, Bolton says that the law as written would require law enforcement to check immigration status on everyone arrested or held, not just those with “reasonable suspicion” of being illegal immigrants. That would create a huge burden on both law enforcement and on legal immigrants, Bolton writes.
Also, on page 17, Bolton appears to buy the argument that a large influx of referrals from Arizona to the ICE would have the effect of pre-empting federal policies on national security and immigration:
Here’s the Fishwrap of Record’s coverage.
***
Here’s the PDF link for the ruling.
Mark Krikorian is right: This is a bonanza for the Soros-funded open-borders litigation industry.
Update II (DP):
Governor Brewer’s statement is here.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Fast and Furious showdown: Holder/Obama defend bloody culture of contempt; Update: Fortress Holder, Stonewall City; vid clips added, Dems advise, “Don’t answer”
February 2, 2012 09:16 AM by Michelle Malkin
158 CommentsObama and Jan Brewer Have Words on Airport Tarmac; Update: Brewer Book Sales Skyrocket
January 25, 2012 09:54 PM by Doug Powers
165 Comments
Gingrich channels open-borders SEIU; Rubio rebukes; Update:Newt retreats
January 25, 2012 10:56 AM by Michelle Malkin
155 Comments
Attention: Obama’s coming to Arizona, Ground Zero of his Fast and Furious debacle
January 23, 2012 02:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
58 CommentsObama heads to Disney World to push looser visa policies
January 17, 2012 01:14 PM by Michelle Malkin
95 Comments
Obama’s “Razist” Lobbyist Moves Up
January 13, 2012 06:29 AM by Michelle Malkin
233 CommentsThe Year in Obama Scandals — and Scandal Deniers
December 28, 2011 12:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
122 Comments
The Brian Terry Memorial Act passes
December 15, 2011 06:08 PM by Michelle Malkin
21 CommentsThe murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry: One year ago today
December 14, 2011 11:11 AM by Michelle Malkin
70 Comments
Categories: Eric Holder,Immigration
Pundit & Pundette
» Bishop Jenky, Nicki Minaj, and the "98%"Sister Toldjah
» Obama’s new budget is a bad jokeJustOneMinute
» We Hear From The Department Of Good Ideas And False Choices
Ok…
a few quick impressions;
the judge recites that running their immigration status would unfairly burden legal immigrants.
This is completely irrational, and will be reversed, on the basis that every LEGAL immigrant is ALREADY required to have their papers AT HAND NOW under Federal law.
If they are out and about without them, it is not a burden on them to be detained until they can establish their status.
Speaking of weaseling scum liberal lies, now they’re claiming ‘global warming’ is responsible for illegal immigration from Mexico!
Yes sir, we can just click our heels together and change earth’s climate with some Priuses, wind turbines and solar panels but stop people from sneaking across the border? Well hell no, the consensus is that it’s scientifically impossible to do anything to stop that from happening so we’ll just have to accept it.
I guess they either never considered that widespread high velocity lead poisoning might have a lot more to do with lowering Mexican farmers’ crop yields than slightly warmer weather or – refused to publish anyone who did.
Rich Lowery of NR is on with Guy Benson (on Huge Hewitt’s show), and HE’s incensed.
When you have Mr. Squish all torqued up, you have preeeettttyyy much PO’d all the Right end of the spectrum.
http://blog.heritage.org/?p=39946
More good analysis…
Rags #208 …
Thanks for reinforcing part of my points in #59 …
My Federal procedure is a bit dusty in this area, but I think that any injunctive relief can immediately be reviewed.
Well, it looks like the judge made being an illegal alien legal in AZ.
Ya’ll forgive me if I repeat some points made in prior posts. I can’t read them all closely.
Rags …
Present options on injunction:
1. Petition the judge to reconsider the injunction …
2. Next action depends on whether she reconsiders and changes her ruling … if she does not amend the injunction …
2. Appeal the injunction to the 9th Circus of appeals
Regardless of the outcome of those 3 items there still has to be a full hearing on the merits of the law … which will probably also be appealed to the 9th court by the losing side …
From there it would go to SCOTUS as the next level of appeal …
Desert,
Actually, at least two of those can be pursued collaterally (1 and 2) IMNHO. I think you can both move for reconsideration AND take up an interlocutory appeal.
NOT dead sure… But I think…
“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed
on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief,
that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.”
Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008) (citations omitted).
I can’t see how the Feds are going to be “irreparably harmed” if Arizona is not enjoined here. The idea is silly.
28 USC 1292
Given the large number of people
who are technically “arrested” but never booked into jail or perhaps even transported to a law
enforcement facility, detention time for this category of arrestee will certainly be extended
during an immigration status verification. (See Escobar, et al. v. City of Tucson, et al., No. CV
10-249-TUC-SRB, Doc. 9, City of Tucson’s Answer & Cross-cl., ¶ 38 (stating that during
fiscal year 2009, Tucson used the cite-and-release procedure provided by A.R.S. § 13-3903
to “arrest” and immediately release 36,821 people).) Under Section 2(B) of S.B. 1070, all
arrestees will be required to prove their immigration status to the satisfaction of state
authorities, thus increasing the intrusion of police presence into the lives of legally-present
aliens (and even United States citizens), who will necessarily be swept up by this
requirement.
These are two sweeping…and unsupported…conclusions by the Court.
The Court hangs its hat…almost entirely…on Hines, which isn’t a good idea.
There are more recent precedents that importantly disagree with Hines, and run directly COUNTER to Hines in some areas.
Dumb…
Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court has emphasized that
Although the State has no direct interest in controlling entry into this country, that interest being one reserved by the Constitution to the Federal Government [NOT true, BTW...read the Constitution], unchecked unlawful migration might impair the State’s economy generally, or the State’s ability to provide some important service. Despite the exclusive federal control of this Nation’s borders, we cannot conclude that the States are without power to deter the influx of persons entering the United States against federal law, and whose numbers might have a discernible impact on traditional state concerns. [Emphasis added.]
Attn Lawyer types:
You guys are all spouting “case” laws. What happened to the Constitution?
Art III Sec 2 Original Jurisdiction
“The judicial Power shall extend to all cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States and….
In all cases affecting……..those in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.
Shouldn’t the case have gone directly to the SCOTUS since it is the US v AZ??
Further, since the AZ law mimicks Fed’l law did the Judge suspend Fed’l law as well so that no one has to carry any ID or have to provide it to LEO’s when they are stopped for an illegal infraction??? Just asking…….
This is all very confusing!!!
By Choice;
Like Topsy…it just growed that way…
Levin came through in writing…
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YjU3MDA5ZmU1NzAzZTJhNTIyYWQxZjEzMzdiMGE2Y2Y=
He called the ruling an “abomination”.
http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/
The sheriff from Tucson was on Roger Hedgecock’s show. He claimed to oppose the law, then over the course of the interview admitted that his deputies already conduct every activity mandated by it, including turning over suspected illegals to ICE.
In light of the above, this is kind of interesting.
Immigrant Groups Criticize fingerprint initiative
…but I wonder if it was an article floated by the propagandists in the media trying to deflect from Arizona?
That’s a damn good question. Add me to the list of those seeking an answer.
I think the answer is that “original jurisdiction” is not the same as “exculsive jurisdiction” and therefore Congress can confer original jurisdiction to lower courts as well, creating “concurrent jurisdiction.”
That should be clear as a bell, right?
Anyway, read Boers v. Preston 111 U.S. 252 (1884)
The one clear loser here is the Obama administration. They took up and stomped on the ‘third rail’.
Remember in November. Take ‘em out.
On July 28th, 2010 at 10:53 pm, chapoutier said:
Yes, it isn’t, but it is a teachable moment: But Boer v Preston (case law) is not the US Gov’t v a Sovereign State (Constitutional law Art III Sec 2) ergo original jurisdiction in this instance.
I find your comment about “concurrent jurisdiction” a giggle because that is exactly what the AZ law is all about because 1070 mirrors Fed’l law and Judge Bolton is going off about the Supremacy Clause….. Also these laws have been on the books for several years. 1070 and its offspring HR 2162 were just a fine tuning. Calif, Virginia, Rhode Island and Missouri all have very similiar laws that say essentially the same thing–except none of them border Mexico…..(Southern CA is Mexico and CA doesnt enforce their illegal alien laws as everyone knows so they don’t really count as a border state). So why is AZ being singled out??
Two Arizona cops shot tonight
Just sayin’
No info yet, other than drug dealers
Like I said yesterday, this ruling will unify anti-open borders voters across the nation to come out against Democrats in this fall’s election.
So maybe this Clinton appointed judge did us all a favor and the motivation needed to evict from office career pols like Harry Reid Barbara Boxer.
I have a sister-in-law who is a big liberal. She recently moved to Arizona and is an advocate for open borders. Now here is the interesting part:
She lived in Costa Rico for a couple of decades before moving back to Arizona of all places. I asked here why she picked Costa Rico and not Mexico or Guatemala. She said it was a safe and democratic nation with good medical care and excellent beaches.
My response was you picked a nation with good border control. She was stumped for a response. The open border advocates simply can’t think.
What we have here is another example of judicial activism. The people of this country, and the constitution, are constantly overturned by a single black robed liberal tyrant. We have the Federal Government suing a state for trying to enforce a Federal law and protect their people. Meanwhile, sanctuary cities are embraced by the socialists in D.C.
This is a mass voter registration drive by the socialists. Their ideology is rejected by Americans so they’re turning to foreigners for their salvation.
Our own salvation is dependent upon what happens in November.
All liberals are stumped for a response when faced with a rational question. Maybe you can also ask her how many illegal aliens she has welcomed to live on her personal property. That should generate a blank stare.
Correct.
Pure and simple.
That’s been happening for decades.
BINGO!!
Exactly.
Not at all an overstatement .
The Judge was trying to make it safe for Obama to travel to Arizona.
Things are getting more and more like the Declaration of Independence … think I’ll pick it up and read it again soon
When you see a ruling that is this bizarre, I am sorry, but it has to beg the follwoing question,
“Judge Bolton, what did the cartels pay you and/or threaten you with in order to get this ruling?”
It is time these questions start being demanded of our public officials. I would start with this judge and the mayor of Phoenix.
I too question why this isn’t an automatic SCOTUS case, and maybe we will see this taken to them as the injunction should be invalidated. What I heard this morning from Newt was that this should immediately allow ALL states to send all bills for education, healthcare, incarceration, welfare and food/housing payments and any other expense the states incur due to Federal inaction straight to the federal gubmint for payment. Then, all states and all citizens would be financing this invasion, and they might get a little more exercised when this is coming out of the collective wallet instead of the border states citizen’s wallets.
Do you know how many cases there are out there in which a state is a party? Do you really want the Supreme Court having to hear a slip and fall case that someone brings because they fell on a wet floor in a state office building?
Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) announced Wednesday night that he is considering introducing a constitutional amendment that would change existing law to no longer grant citizenship to the children of immigrants born in the United States.
Even a broken watch is right two times a day. This would be astonishing if it is true. First they helped defeat the DISCLOSE act. Now this. What is getting into our Senate RINOs these days?
When it’s something this serious and unsettled, there should – no, must – be an immediate route to remedy. The Constitution promises us this much -
***
THANK YOU RAGSPIERRE–#226–for the link to Mark Levin’s excellent explanation of the faults with the “wise socialist” judge’s decision.
***
Mr. Levin always provides excellent legal insights on what is going on in our government and courts. I have learned a lot from him over the last 5 years.
***
John Bibb
***
I am not sure why I follow any laws. This is pure anarchy. Why not just cut in line in front of people who chose to follow the law to emigrate to this country? They are suckers for doing that.
Why not just hire workers and not pay the employers tax on those workers? That would save me a lot of money that I can then pocket and make myself rich. Oh yeah, and I will be able to outbid all those suckers who do follow the law and run them out of business. What a racket. Unfair competition? Who cares?
I am required to check I9 status on all employees I hire. Why do I even mess around with that? If I just skip it, I could probably hire some people that will work for less money. Then I can find other illegals who will work for less than that, then someone who will work for less than minimum wage. Why follow that law either? And the 8 hour overtime law. Don’t follow that either. Why pay the time and a half to people. That takes money from my pocket. If I am going to cheat, I might as well go all the way. Someone else will.
Child labor laws? Workplace safety? Census reporting? Sales tax reporting? Thats all against my civil rights to have to do all that. I don’t want to compete fairly, I just want to be rich so laws don’t apply to me. Anarchists unite!
Wouldn’t that involve suing a state official? I thought states themselves couldn’t be sued by ordinary citizens without their consent.
And even if they could, for any federal court to hear it, it would have to be a case where the Constitution authorizes federal court jurisdiction to begin with. The hypothetical case you describe doesn’t seem to fit the bill.
Anyway, Chap, thanks for the case cite. I’ll check it out when I get a moment.
Blackstone,
Re: difference between suing a state official and the actual state, I am not sure there is a substantive difference. I think the official is just a proxy for the state. Admittedly, though, I am bit 100%.
Re: case where the SC would have jurisdiction, you are correct and I should have been more careful in the example. But if it were a citizen of another state that was suing for the fall, I see nothing in the Constitution barring the SC from having original jurisdiction over that. It is a suit between the state and citizen of another state.
Point being there is no way the SC could be a court of exclusive jurisdiction in these situations. There are just far too many.
Going into this a bit further, in general, you are correct. However, there are a ton of areas where states almost always waive this immunity (such as in tort cases). So it is still very possible in mayn areas to sue the state itself.
But, looking into this I found an outline that shows the issue between suing a state and suing a state official (in official capacity) is quite a bit more complicated than I imagined. Here is the outline, if you feel like boring yourself to death.
I suppose that makes sense. I guess technically, every criminal trial prosecuted by the state is a case to which a state is party, unless I’m misunderstanding the definition of the word “party”. And if a constitutional question comes up in the course of the proceeding…