A federal judge will hear arguments July 22 on the request by the U.S. Department of Justice to block Arizona's new immigration law from taking effect.
At a hearing Wednesday, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton ordered the newest of the challenges to SB 1070 transferred to her court. That puts her in control of all six lawsuits already filed.
Bolton also gave Gov. Jan Brewer until July 20 to respond to the arguments by the Department of Justice that the law illegally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to control immigration policy.
That July 22 hearing actually will be the third time that Bolton will hear arguments to enjoin the law.
She already has scheduled a hearing for a week from Thursday on a similar motion by David Salgado. The Phoenix police officer contends his rights are being violated by a requirement in the law that he ask those he has stopped about their immigration status when there is "reasonable suspicion" they are in this country illegally. Salgado also said another section of SB 1070 puts him at risk of being sued if he doesn't enforce the law "to the fullest extent permitted by federal immigration law."
And Bolton already agreed to hear arguments earlier in the day on July 22 from attorneys from three civil rights groups who contend not only that the state has exceeded its legal authority but that SB 1070 will lead to racial profiling.
But Bolton told attorneys in the newest case Wednesday that, given the time involved, she may be unable to rule on their request for an injunction before the law takes effect on July 29.
Generally speaking, a judge must consider two issues when deciding on a request to block enforcement of a new law.
One is what courts call the "balance of hardships," which essentially comes down to whose interests will be more hurt. Attorneys for the Department of Justice argued in their pleadings that if SB 1070 takes effect it will "inflict irreparable injury on the United States' ability to manage foreign policy." They also say it will "harm U.S. interests by imposing special burdens on lawfully present aliens."
The state has not yet responded to the latest lawsuit. But in a response to the Salgado request for an injunction, attorneys for Brewer argued that any claim of irreparable harm is "speculative."
That, however, is only half the issue. A judge must also consider which side is more likely to win when the entire case goes to trial.
Such a trial is not likely to take place for months, whether or not Bolton agrees to block enforcement of the law in the interim.
forkedlift1 posted at 3:48 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Good informative update on court scheduling, etc., but these "polls" that the Tribune keeps putting out here are pretty meaningless since those using multiple screen names find it easy to "game the system" with all of them.
Accuracy posted at 7:46 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Entering the United States without documentation and permission is illegal and is punishable according to existing federal immigration laws.
So, US Attorney General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law, all on behalf of the Obama administration and big federal government's power to regulate immigration.
It’s the federal government job to secure our borders, and Arizona is one of the states next to the border that feels they have been abandoned and left to do the job themselves.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has set a July 22nd hearing date for the Justice Department's action, which is clearly a violation of states' rights.
Nine other states have passed similar legislation, and nationally, more states support state enactments of illegal-immigration laws similar to the one adopted by Arizona. For total government control over state rights, is why the Obama administration is fighting back against the new Arizona illegal-immigration law.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:29 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Nominated by Bill Clinton. I can guess her "decision".
http://judgepedia.org/index.php/Susan_Bolton
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:31 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
I have to laugh everytime forkedlift1 claims how polls get gamed by multiple screen names. Any port in a storm, eh?
fganje posted at 9:38 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
As our Federal agencies seem to be reluctant to enforce existing immigration laws and are suing Arizona for enforcing a law that mirrors Federal laws, they are obstructing justice. The best solution would be for voters to remove these gutless members of congress from office who sit on the fence and refuse to correct what is a national problem.
forkedlift1 posted at 10:51 am on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
fgange, I've read the 25-page lawsuit filed by the feds. It naturally covers the three major constitutional issues -- the Supremacy Clause, preemption and interstate commerce -- but it also covers the many parts of SB 1070 that far exceed anything ever contained in federal immigration law, are unrelated to the federal law, or are counter to federal immigration law.
In other words, Arizona's law is NOT "a law that mirrors Federal Laws"
Those who persistently or naively parrot the falsehood display their own ignorance.
hillstreet posted at 2:54 pm on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
Don't waste your time, forkedlift. Most folks behind this law have no clue, they think Pearce and Brewer can go around passing unconstitutional laws, shooting from the hip, and it's alright just because they say so. As much as I dislike BO and the democrats, we do not live in total anarchy, yet.
The states may not adopt laws in conflict with federal laws nor may they encroach on activities restricted to the federal government by the Constitution, as AZ will soon find out.
All this shoot from -the-hip, talk-with-your-balls instead-of-your-brains, us-vs.-them cowboy mentality fostered and encouraged by Uberfuehrer Pearce and his Schutzstaffel bunch is amusing but a waste of time. They passed a law that will never be enforced, wasted a lot of people's time and money, for what? So Pearce can advance his ambitions to a congressional seat and Brewer can get re-elected, all based on the anti-immigration sentiment.
apriltwenty posted at 5:32 pm on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
After the courts rule that 1070 is illegal and cannot stand, the national perception that AZ is a racist place will continue. We will continue to be boycotted and will probably go broke. We will probably continue to vote for the likes of Pearce because we are undereducated and don't know any better.
Accuracy posted at 7:11 pm on Thu, Jul 8, 2010.
President Barack Obama's Administration asked the high court to review the 2007 Arizona law, signed by former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano, penalizing employers who knowingly hire undocumented workers - saying it was unconstitutional when Napolitano signed it.
Since this comes at a time when Obama Administration is taking on Arizona's new illegal-immigration law . . . Maybe Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano can appear in both cases.
As far as the barrage of illegal challenges to Arizona's illegal-immigration law, many lawyers that have read SB1070 and say; “It does not conflict with federal immigration law - it actually mirrors it!”
Just like Rhode Island, who has been carrying out their illegal-immigration law procedures for quite a while.
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:49 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
"Those who persistently or naively parrot the falsehood display their own ignorance." -- Like when you said people use mulitple screen names to "game" a poll. Most people don't trust polls anyway. Why waste the time and effort?
Masterrogue666 posted at 7:50 am on Fri, Jul 9, 2010.
accuracy -- Missouri does as well....