Federal District Court Judge, Susan Bolton on Wednesday granted a partial injunction against key provisions of Arizona’s Immigration Law (SB-1070), which was to have gone into effect tomorrow, July 29.
Bolton blocked perhaps the most controversial and significant provision: the requirement that law enforcement officers check the immigration status of anyone they stop, detail or arrest, if they reasonably suspect the person is in the U.S. illegally. In blocking the provision, Bolton argued that, such a requirement is a violation of Federal control of immigration matters.
The United States is likely to succeed on the merits in showing that they are pre-empted by federal law, Bolton noted, and likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction.
Bolton also noted that, “requiring Arizona law enforcement officials and agencies to determine the immigration status of every person who is arrested burdens lawfully-present aliens because their liberty will be restricted while their status is checked.”
So, on a temporary basis, Bolton also blocked those parts of the law requiring immigrants to carry their papers at all times, and the provision making it illegal for undocumented workers to look for work in public places.
Nonetheless, other troublesome provisions of SB-1070 remain. The law allows for lawsuits against government agencies that don’t enforce immigration law and makes it illegal to transport illegal immigrants, even in an emergency.
Since the Arizona Immigration Law was signed into law last April, there has been a national outcry with opponents indicating that the new law promotes racial profiling and will lead to civil rights abuses.
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit challenging SB-1070 saying immigration should be dealt with by the federal government, not the states.
Florida, meanwhile, joined eight other states in supporting Arizona’s new immigration law against the DOJ’s lawsuit.
Arizona’s Governor Jan Brewer said that the state would appeal today’s ruling and was careful to point out that it was only a “temporary injunction”. Legal experts however, suggest, give the scope of this case, it could reach the U.S. Supreme Court.
