Oral argument reports: SCOTUS seems poised to uphold key part of Arizona Law

Oral argument reports: Supreme Court appears poised to uphold key part of Arizona Immigration Law (SB 1070)

The Supreme Court heard argument this morning on the challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, S.B. 1070. See my post yesterday for background.

The transcript and audio will not be available until the end of the week (the same day release on the Obamacare argument was an exceptinon to the general policy of releasing the transcript and audio only after the Justices’ Friday conference.)

Based on initial reports, below, it appears the Justices are inclined to uphold at least the section of the law that permits state authorities to inquire as to immigration status (usual caution, questions asked at oral argument do not necessarily predict outcome).

From Tom Goldstein at ScotusBlog, who attended the argument:


The argument is just finishing. Most of the time was spent on the provisions permitting the state to inquire about immigration status. Those provisions are likely to be upheld because the federal government can always decline to enforce immigration laws even if they learn about someone with a legal staff. [sic] The court may be unanimous on that question.

Very little time was spent on the provisions making it a state crime to violate your federal immigration status. But I think there will be at least were at least four votes to strike those provisions down (at least the failure to register), meaning the Ninth Circuit’s decision will be upheld in that respect. The court is also likely to leave open the question whether as applied challenges can be brought against all the provisions of the statute.

A similar take from The Wall Street Journal’s live blog:


Supreme Court justices seemed inclined to allow at least one provision of Arizona’s tough anti-immigration law….

From the tenor of the oral argument, it’s possible a ruling in the case may not fall strictly along ideological lines. Some of the court’s liberal justices, though expressing concerns about the Arizona law, wondered whether the state could be prohibited from checking the immigration status of individuals within its borders….

What is less clear is the fate of two sections of the Arizona law that create new state-law crimes based on violations of federal immigration law. Justices across the ideological spectrum at times asked skeptical questions of those latter provisions….

At the end of the morning’s session, it appears that the court may be inclined to uphold sections of the Arizona law that call on officers to check the immigration status of individuals they stop.

More to follow as available.

Updates: The impression of the argument appears unanimous:

CNN: “Parts of Arizona’s sweeping immigration law received a surprising amount of support from a short-handed Supreme Court Wednesday…. Even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the federal governments’ lawyer his case was “not selling very well.”"

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/04...n-law-sb-1070/

Obama.

If its upheld, Obama wins.

The lawsuit by the Obama administration is purely a political stunt and this administration has absolutely no intention of winning its case. Two things:

1) Obama has demanded mandatory S-Comm nationwide by 2013. S-Comm=States allowed to check imm. status of anyone they encounter

2) AZ law is doing what S-Comm does, so really, what is it that you are arguing? Obama, a Harvard trained lawyer, is telling Supreme Court judges, yes, we do want states to check imm.status, as long as it has been US that have told them so. What a f***ing joke.

Anyone who fell for the claim that "he is deeply committed to CIR" really should have their head examined.

Thank you for opening my eyes. Politics is PURE POISON and nothing knows more about these than Americans themselves!

This is what I was saying yesterday, again if you just study the trends it's obvious. The DA is years away from passing, I hate to say this but again like always people need to think of Plan Bs. Stop dreaming, I hate to sound callous and it saddens me but people need pragmatic action.

Well keep in mind the SCOTUS is mostly appointed by Republicans, and Kagan had to recuse herself since she worked for the Obama admin. before joining the court.

I disagree. S-Comm requires you to be in custody and fingerprinted in the course of an arrest, then they forward the prints to ICE as in the past they just sent them to the FBI and the state agencies.

In Arizona, the law says you can be checked if there is 'reasonable suspicion' aka you have no drivers license and no history of ever having one or you are traveling in a large group or don't know English etc. So the standard is much lower.

Yes, I admire her for that, for having the morals to. Clarence Thomas got over a million dollars from anti-healthcare reform groups and didn't even have half the guts to do the same on the healthcare reform case. Sickening.

I think that any ruling, whether it is for or against this law, it will spark the immigration debate in congress all over again. I think the debate might heat up to the levels of 07. (do you guys think that i am wrong?)