But the provisions of the Arizona law blocked by the appeals court “do not represent an effort to cooperate with the federal government in enforcing federal immigration law,” Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr.told the court in the government’s filing.
The Justice Department has filed suit to block similar laws in Alabama, South Carolina and Utah, and the agency said it is reviewing laws in Georgia and Indiana that private groups and individuals have challenged.
Verrilli told the justices they should wait for some of those lawsuits to work their way through the courts.
In addition to taking alternative approaches to the subjects the Arizona law addresses, the other laws address different issues such as housing, contracting, education and transportation, Verrilli said.
“There’s no reason to think that reviewing this [Arizona] preliminary injunction would resolve those cases,” he argued.
He also said that the federal government has to be the lead authority on issues of “law enforcement priorities, foreign relations considerations and humanitarian concerns.”
The Arizona case will probably be heard in April. Justice Elena Kagan will not take part, presumably because she worked on the issue in her previous role as solicitor general.
That raises the prospect of a 4 to 4 tie. In such a case, the 9th Circuit’s decision blocking portions of the Arizona law would stand, but the decision would carry no national significance for the other state laws now being challenged.
Although its decision to challenge the laws has enraged some state officials and conservative members of Congress, the Obama administration also has angered some groups because of the
record-breaking pace at which immigrants here illegally are being deported.
About 1.2 million illegal immigrants have been deported in the first three years of the administration, compared with 1.57 million during the eight years of President George W. Bush’s administration.
The number of those entering the country illegally has fallen dramatically, but the issue has not cooled politically. Democrats and Republicans are eager to court the rapidly growing bloc of Hispanic voters, who are more likely than others to oppose the tougher restrictions, studies have shown.
The case is Arizona v. United States .
In other action, Kagan wrote for a unanimous court that a Filipino man who has been in the United States since 1974 should be able to apply for an exception to rules that say he must be deported for violating the law.
Joel Judulang, a lawful permanent resident, pleaded guilty to voluntary manslaughter and later was arrested for theft. He challenged federal rules that did not allow him to apply for an exception to his deportation order.
Kagan wrote that the Board of Immigration Appeals failed to give a “reasoned explanation” for its actions. “That is not a high bar, but it is an unwavering one,” she wrote.
The case is Judulang v. Holder .
Campaign 2012 tools
The Post Most: PoliticsMost-viewed stories, videos and galleries int he past two hours
Featured Blogs & Columns
Loading...
Comments