Arizona Law

The immigration-reform debate has hardly been as fiery in this region as elsewhere in the nation, but even here, the U.S. Supreme Court's complex decision Monday in Arizona v. United States brought a rush of divergent opinion on the ruling's impact. The justices rejected most of Arizona's tough 2010 border-control law but affirmed the "papers, please" provision, which empowers police to investigate the residency status of anyone they stop or arrest and suspect of being undocumented.

ORLANDO, Fla. - No longer a back-burner issue, immigration is roiling the presidential race as President Obama and Republican Mitt Romney seek to court the nation's swelling Hispanic population. The outcome could influence political battle lines and shape U.S. politics for generations. By week's end, both candidates will address the same Latino political convention in Florida, showcasing contrasting political ideologies at a pivotal time. The Supreme Court is about to render judgment on a get-tough Arizona law, and just last week the Democratic president announced plans to ease deportation rules for some children of illegal immigrants.

The Supreme Court is almost certainly going to uphold the most controversial portion of Arizona's 2010 immigration law, S.B. 1070 — the requirement that local police check the immigration status of people stopped for other offenses if there's reason to believe they are illegal immigrants. The U.S. Justice Department's case is based on the contention that Congress has prohibited states from assisting federal authorities in enforcing immigration law in this way — a claim that is transparently false and that even the pro-Obama members of the court were not buying during last month's oral arguments.

Questions and comments made by several justices during last week's oral arguments suggested the Supreme Court might validate that portion of a controversial Arizona law that would allow local police to question persons suspected of other crimes about their immigration status. The court wouldn't consider the likelihood that such questioning might violate the questioned person's civil rights because that is the subject of separate litigation. The justices are limited to ruling on the constitutionality of specific issues brought before the high court, so they also didn't comment on the morality of the Arizona law and others like it either proposed or enacted in other states.

The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday abo**ut Arizona's attempt to purge itself of all undocumented immigrants — and even those who "look" illegal — and the court's questions suggest that it may support the controversial law that the Grand Canyon State adopted in 2010. Arizona's SB 1070 — the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act"— relies on state and local law enforcement to get rid of illegal immigrants. The most controversial provisions require police and other law-enforcement officials to ask about the immigration status of anyone they stop, authorizes local police to make an arrest without a warrant of any person they believe is removable from the United States, makes it a misdemeanor to fail to carry proper immigration documents and makes it a crime for undocumented immigrants to look for work.

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court justices sounded sympathetic Wednesday to Arizona's efforts to crack down on illegal immigrants, while raising some questions about the potential consequences for individuals and for national policy. In an election-year case that inspired chanting demonstrators outside and maneuvering politicians across Capitol Hill, multiple justices hinted or declared outright that Arizona can enforce its own border-control measures. Overall, the tenor of the unusually long argument tilted in favor of the state.

PHOENIX - A federal judge blocked police in Arizona from enforcing a section of the state's 2010 immigration enforcement law that prohibited people from blocking traffic when they seek or offer day-labor services on streets. U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton ruled Wednesday that groups seeking to overturn the law would likely prevail in their claim that the day-labor rules violate the First Amendment. She rejected arguments by the state that the rules were needed for traffic safety and pointed out that the law, also known as SB1070, says its purpose is to make attrition through enforcement the immigration policy of state and local government agencies.

ATLANTA - After the U.S. Supreme Court this week agreed to rule on Arizona's law targeting illegal immigrants, some states with similar statutes asked Thursday for delayed legal action on their laws pending the high court's decision. The court will review a federal appeals ruling that blocked parts of the Arizona law, which the Obama administration challenged. Similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina, and Utah also face suits by both the U.S. government and activist groups. Civil liberties and immigrant rights groups sued over laws adopted in Georgia and Indiana.

The U.S. Supreme Court did not have to commit itself, as it did Monday, to deciding the constitutionality of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration statute, Senate Bill 1070. The justices could have allowed the lower federal courts, which have temporarily enjoined enforcement of portions of the law at the request of the Obama administration, to proceed with a trial on the statute's constitutional merits. Or they could have waited until lower courts ruled on challenges to similar statutes in Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and Georgia.

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court yesterday stepped into the fight over a tough Arizona law that requires local police to help enforce federal immigration laws - pushing the court deeper into hot, partisan issues of the 2012 election campaign. The court's election-year docket now contains three politically charged disputes, including President Obama's health-care overhaul and Texas redistricting. The debate over immigration already is shaping presidential politics, and now the court is undertaking a review of an Arizona law that has spawned a host of copycat state laws targeting illegal immigrants.