Supreme Court to review Arizona immigration law

Controversial in certain circles, that is. The law rescued Gov. Jan Brewer's reelection campaign and retains 2-1 support in recent Arizona polls. There have been numerous copycat bills in state legislatures across the country and the most successful have attracted Obama administration lawsuits of their own.
Russell Pearce has been down this road before. The former Arizona state senate president is the architect of SB 1070 and other immigration control measures -- including a law requiring businesses to use the E-Verify system to check the legal status of their workers, which also ended up before the Supreme Court.
"We won 5 to 3 on the E-Verify case," Pearce says. "The same issues and constitutional principles are at stake here. I expect we'll win 5 to 3 again." (Justice Elena Kagan, the former solicitor general, recused herself in the last case and will do so again in the forthcoming one.) Indeed, the Supreme Court found that Arizona immigration law fell "well within the confines of the authority Congress chose to leave to the States."
Pearce was recalled in November, but notes that "amnesty, the DREAM Act, and open borders" were all downplayed in the race. The Republican who replaced him, Jerry Lewis, described SB 1070 as "a good start."
Oddly, the case comes as the Obama administration touts record deportations of illegal immigrants. Most of the spike in removals comes from illegal aliens who committed other crimes, many of whom were already in state or local custody. So why doesn't the administration support SB 1070?


Last month, the court agreed to hear an appeal brought by 26 Republican-led states and decide on the constitutionality of the healthcare law championed by the president.


The immigration case involves a clash between the federal authorities and several Republican-led states over who can enforce the laws against illegal immigrants.


Arizona lawmakers, frustrated by what they called the federal government’s failure to enforce the immigration laws, passed their own enforcement measure. Known as SB 1070, it included several provisions that require the police to check the immigration status of persons who were stopped. Officers were to detain those who could not show evidence they were legal residents.


Shortly after the measure became law, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit in Phoenix, arguing that state measure conflicted with the federal government’s exclusive authority to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.


U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked much of the Arizona law from taking effect, and the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld her decision on a 2-1 vote.


In August, Gov. Jan Brewer appealed to the high court. She said the federal authorities had trampled on the state’s turf.


Paul Clement, the former U.S. solicitor general, represented Arizona and argued that the states have an “inherent police power” to enforce laws within their own borders.


Current Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr., representing the Obama administration, urged the court last month to turn down Arizona’s appeal.


The justices instead said they will hear the case of Arizona vs. United States and are likely to set the arguments for April. The court’s eventual ruling is likely to determine the fate of similar immigration laws adopted in the past year by Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah.