Arizona’s controversial immigration law is headed for the U.S. Supreme Court the results could have a big impact on the 2012 elections.
The case should be argued next April, and decided just four months before Election Day. Immigration issues have been among the major issues in national politics for the past decade, and promises to be again during the presidential and many congressional elections next year.
Arizona v. United States likely will be the biggest immigration case ever because it pits President Obama’s Justice Department claiming the exclusive right to regulate the borders against Arizona’s Gov. Jan Brewer and a state legislature who passed the law at issue because they thought Washington isn’t doing its job.
Brewer signed S.B. 1070 into law on Apr. 23, 2010. It was designed to address problems created by illegal aliens in Arizona, mirroring federal law requirements that noncitizens need to carry proper immigration documents, penalizing businesses that violate federal law by hiring illegal aliens, and empowering law enforcement to check immigration status during traffic stops.
Then, with Obama’s approval, Attorney General Eric Holder then filed suit in federal court against Arizona. The district court judge sided with DOJ on part of the law, as did the Ninth Circuit appeals court.
Former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement—one of the two best Supreme Court lawyers in the country—took the case and petitioned SCOTUS to review the law.
This case will turn on whether federal law trumps Arizona. The Constitution gives Congress exclusive power over immigration, but that’s defined as determining (1) who can enter this country, (2) how long they can stay, and (3) how a foreigner becomes a citizen. S.B. 1070 doesn’t do any of those things.
At the center of the debate is the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. The question is whether Congress has flooded the whole area of law concerning the employment and treatment of noncitizens that no state has power to make its own laws.
The courts have upheld state law enforcement measures that mirror and supplement federal law. So we’ll be in the tricky area of determining whether S.B. 1070 is inconsistent with Congress’ intent.
It’s irrelevant if Arizona’s law frustrates what Obama or Holder want. The only question is if it frustrates what Congress wants, as expressed exclusively in Congress’ laws on the books.
Ken Klukowski is a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and covers the federal courts and constitutional issues for the Examiner.
