U.S. v. Arizona: Feds Sue to Block State Immigration Law

The Justice Department made official Tuesday afternoon what its tribunes have hinted at for the past two months: the federal government will challenge the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial new immigration law and seek an immediate injunction from a federal judge to block the measure's enforcement pending judicial review.

The measure is scheduled to go into effect on July 29th. If the judge grants the requested stay, a decision expected within weeks, enforcement of the law could be delayed for years -- even if it is ultimately deemed constitutional.

Among other elements, Arizona's law requires police and other law enforcement officials, while enforcing other laws, to question a person's immigration status upon "reasonable suspicion" that they are in the state illegally. The law also makes it a crime for a person not to produce an identification if asked to do so by the police. It broadens the rights of citizens to sue state and local agencies they believe are hindering immigration policies and makes it unlawful for such agencies to have policies that restrict enforcement of federal laws .

"Arizona has taken a reasonable, constitutional approach to dealing with a problem that has been ignored by the Obama Administration," Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill wrote Tuesday in an open letter to Attorney General Eric Holder. "Arizona's law simply applies state penalties to acts already illegal under federal law."

Holder said in the Justice Department's own press release announcing the high-profile litigation that "Arizonans are understandably frustrated with illegal immigration, and the federal government has a responsibility to comprehensively address those concerns." But, he added, "diverting federal resources away from dangerous aliens such as terrorism suspects and aliens with criminal records will impact the entire country's safety. Setting immigration policy and enforcing immigration laws is a national responsibility. Seeking to address the issue through a patchwork of state laws will only create more problems than it solves."

Although the general public is split on immigration issues, the Arizona measure is popular in that state and elsewhere. Some states, like South Carolina and Texas, have debated their own Arizona-styled laws. But in their 25-page complaint, federal lawyers argue that Arizona's measures are preempted by federal immigration laws and policies, the supremacy clause of the Constitution, and Supreme Court precedent, all of which, they say, have established that immigration matters are a "broad" and "exclusive" federal power. Here's a key graph from the complaint styled U.S. v. Arizona:

"The nation's immigration laws reflect a careful and considered balance of national law enforcement, foreign relations, and humanitarian interests. Congress has assigned to the United States Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and Department of State, along with other federal agencies, the task of enforcing and administering these immigration-related laws...Although states may exercise their police power in a manner that has an incidental or indirect effect on aliens, a state may not establish its own immigration policy or enforce state laws in a manner that interferes with the federal immigration laws."
Critics of the Arizona initiative suggest that the legal issues are as clear-cut as they would be if Arizona were suddenly to attempt to negotiate a treaty with a foreign nation. "The Obama administration's action against this 'show me your papers' law sends a loud and clear message against state laws that institutionalize racial profiling of Latinos and result in an erosion of trust between law enforcement and the community," said Alessandra Soler Meetze of Arizona's American Civil Liberties Union.

Supporters of S.B. 1070, as the Arizona law is captioned, say that Arizona is merely complimenting (but not contradicting) federal policy and/or filling a void where no policy exists. "States like Arizona should not have to act on their own, but Washington's decades of neglect for border security leave them no choice," Republican Study Committee Chairman Tom Price (R-Ga.) stated in a press release Tuesday.

There already are at least four pending lawsuits against the Arizona law. Mexico has challenged the measure and so have civil libertarians, arguing the new policies violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment as well as the Fourth Amendment's search-and-seizure clause. It is possible that all of these lawsuits now will be joined together, with the private litigants focusing upon these issues and the Justice Department focusing upon the preemption argument. Here, from the language of the government's brief, is another good summary of the government's position:

"Enforcement of S.B. 1070 will disrupt the constitutional order by undermining the federal government's control over the regulation of immigration and immigration policy... Moreover, S.B. 1070 will result in the harassment of lawfully present aliens and even U.S. citizens. Implementation of the law will damage the United States' ability to speak with a single and authoritative voice to foreign governments on immigration matters and is already having negative effects on long-standing and vital international relationships."

With an injunction hanging over their heads, anticipate a swift response by lawyers for the Arizona defendants-- certainly within the next week or so -- and a ruling on the injunction before the end of the month. I'll have some analysis on the complaint and the brief later this week.