Alliance of White Anti-Racists Everywhere – Los Angeles
Department of Justice
Survey Reports Alarming Levels of Sexual and Domestic Violence
01 month ago
Last week, the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control reported the results of its extensive survey on intimate partner and sexual violence in the United States. The findings were staggering. In the past year alone, 1.3 million women were raped. In their lifetime, approximately 1 in 5 women have been raped and 1 in 6 women have been stalked. 1 in 4 women have been the victim of severe physical violence by an intimate partner.
The report notes that incidents of sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking are underreported crimes in the U.S., as survivors are reluctant to disclose their victimization for a number of reasons, including shame and fear of retribution from perpetrators. Additionally, laws may not be enforced properly or consistently, and perpetrators may become more dangerous after their victims report these crimes.
Although violence against women is clearly prevalent throughout the U.S., local police departments are not doing all they can to prevent or respond to it. The Department of Justice (DoJ) recently announced its findings in an ongoing civil rights investigation of the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office in Arizona, which has failed to investigate a large number of sex crimes. DoJ reported similar failures in its investigation of the Puerto Rico Police Department (PRPD). According to DoJ, the PRPD has not effectively addressed domestic violence and rape in Puerto Rico, and has not appropriately disciplined police officers accused of domestic violence. Additionally, statistics strongly suggest that the PRPD is not ensuring that women living under the threat of domestic violence make use of the legal resources available to them – namely orders of protection. Similarly, DoJ’s investigation of the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) revealed a systemic breakdown in NOPD’s handling of sexual assault investigations and domestic violence cases.
Thankfully, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey reports that some communities have developed “highly trained, coordinated teams with expertise related to sexual violence victimization, stalking, and intimate partner violence and can provide compassionate, informed responses.” Local governments are also implementing domestic-violence policy changes in response to the ACLU’s landmark win at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. We support efforts such as these, which work to enhance training within the criminal justice system, can provide survivors with adequate support, facilitate reporting, and ensure that those who commit violence against women, and those responsible for responding to violence, are held accountable.
Learn more about violence against women: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
DHS Shuts Down 287(g) Agreement with Maricopa County Following DOJ Investigation, Restricts Secure Communities
01 month ago
Today, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Janet Napolitano, announced that DHS will terminate its 287(g) agreement with the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and restrict access to the Secure Communities program, following damaging findings released by the Department of Justice (DOJ). After a three year long civil rights investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office (MCSO)—an office led by America’s “toughest sheriff” Joe Arpaio—the DOJ announced today that it had “reasonable cause” to believe the Sheriff’s Office has “engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct that violates the Constitution and federal law.”
In addition to the excessive use of force, the failure to investigate allegations of sexual assaults and practices that prevented the protection of Latino residents, the DOJ found reasonable cause to believe the Sheriff’s Office participated in:
- Discriminatory policing practices including unlawful stops, detentions and arrests of Latinos;
- Unlawful retaliation against individuals exercising their First Amendment right to criticize MCSO’s policies or practices, including but not limited to practices relating to its discriminatory treatment of Latinos; and
- Discriminatory jail practices against Latino inmates with limited English proficiency by punishing them and denying them critical services.
As if that weren’t enough, the DOJ also found that the Sheriff’s Office failed to implement policies guiding policing practices, allowed the use of unconstitutional practices, provided inadequate training and supervision, and lacked sufficient oversight and accountability.
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is renowned for his “tough on immigration” media stunts, such as requiring detainees to wear pink underwear, segregating inmates, and marching shackled inmates to a tent city surrounded by an electric fence.
Following the investigation, the DOJ said that it will work with the Sheriff’s Office to develop and implement a comprehensive reform plan to address the violations and will even seek legal action if the office fails to cooperate. According to Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, Thomas E. Perez:
Effective policing and constitutional policing go hand in hand … MCSO’s systematic disregard for basic constitutional protections has created a wall of distrust between the sheriff’s office and large segments of the community, which dramatically compromises the ability to protect and serve the people … We hope to resolve the concerns outlined in our findings in a collaborative fashion, but we will not hesitate to take appropriate legal action if MCSO chooses a different course of action.”
Today’s DOJ findings validate what many immigration advocates have been complaining about for years—that the systematic abuse of state immigration enforcement programs cannot go unchecked. DHS’s response curtailing cooperation with Maricopa County’s Sheriff Office is a step in the right direction, but there are many states and local immigration enforcement programs out there operating without oversight, accountability or guidelines for policing strategies. While Maricopa County represents the most egregious of these, DHS will hopefully now take a closer look at immigration enforcement programs across the board.
Photo by Gage Skidmore.
Supreme Court to Weigh in on Injunctions Against Arizona SB 1070
01 month ago
Earlier today, the Supreme Court announced what many supporters and opponents of Arizona SB 1070 long expected: that the Justices will themselves have the final word on the validity of the injunctions entered shortly after the law was enacted last year. Technically, the question before the Justices is simply whether four of the law’s provisions should be temporarily blocked pending resolution of a larger legal challenge. In addition, the Court will not consider claims raised in a separate lawsuit by numerous immigrants’ and civil rights groups. But in the decision it ultimately issues, the Supreme Court may well provide broad guidance about what role, if any, local police may play in enforcing federal immigration law—which could in turn affect legal challenges to copycat laws in other states, such as Alabama.
How did the case get to the Supreme Court?
Soon after Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed SB 1070 into law, the federal government filed suit alleging its provisions conflicted with, and were thus “preempted” by, federal immigration law. A district judge in Phoenix entered a temporary injunction against four of the law’s provisions while permitting others to go into effect. A federal appeals court in San Francisco then upheld the injunction, causing Arizona to file a petition with the Supreme Court.
Which provisions of SB 1070 will the Supreme Court consider?
The Justices will evaluate the temporary injunctions against the following four provisions of SB 1070:
- Section 2(B), which requires local police officers to investigate the immigration status of any person they stop or detain whom they possess “reasonable suspicion” to believe is unlawfully present in the United States;
- Section 3, which makes it a crime under Arizona law for foreign nationals to fail to carry or apply for registration papers provided by the federal government;
- Section 5, which makes it a crime under Arizona law for immigrants to solicit, apply for, or perform work without federal employment authorization; and
- Section 6, which authorizes local police officers to arrest foreign nationals whom they have “probable cause” to believe have committed an offense making them deportable from the United States.
The Justices could vote to uphold or overturn the injunction against all, none, or some of the provisions.
When will the case be argued and decided?
The Supreme Court did not set a date for oral argument, though it will likely occur in March or April 2012. Regardless of when the case is argued, the decision, as always, is likely to come by the end of June 2012.
Why did Justice Kagan recuse herself from the case?
The order announcing the Supreme Court’s acceptance of the case also stated that Justice Kagan recused herself from the matter. While no specific reason was given, it is fair to assume she took part in internal discussions about the suit—which was filed shortly after her nomination to the Supreme Court—during her previous stint as Solicitor General. To prevail, the United States will likely need votes not only from Justice Kennedy, who is often a “swing” vote in controversial cases, but from one of the other four Republican nominees (Chief Justice Roberts, or Justices Scalia, Thomas, or Alito).
What happens if there is a 4-4 tie?
If the Justices split 4-4, the ruling of the Ninth Circuit would automatically be upheld—but would not create “precedent” or otherwise be binding on lower courts. As a result, the status quo would stay in place unless and until the Justices considered a separate challenge. However, if Justice Kennedy and the Court’s remaining Democratic nominees were to rule against Arizona, it would strongly suggest the federal government would win a case argued before all nine Justices.
If Arizona wins, will states have a “green light” to enact copycat laws?
Certainly not. At present, the Supreme Court is only considering whether the four provisions of SB 1070 should be temporarily blocked while the underlying legal challenge is resolved. In addition, the suit brought by the federal government involves a much narrower set of issues than a companion case brought by a coalition of immigrants’ rights groups. Finally, even if the Supreme Court finds the injunctions were not required against the law as written, it would not prevent future suits from challenging how the law is actually implemented.
Sharing Prints: DOJ and FBI Must Take Responsibility for S-Comm Failures, Too
02 months ago
It’s long past time for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to stop passing the buck on Secure Communities (S-Comm) and take responsibility for the controversial immigration enforcement program. S-Comm has caused unprecedented harms to public safety and community trust in the police: DOJ must urgently take action to end this disastrous initiative.
S-Comm has been implemented by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in 1,659 jurisdictions across the country, disregarding the opposition of numerous states and localities. Under S-Comm, the FBI shares the fingerprints of every arrested person with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — despite the fact that sharing these prints contravenes agreements made between the states and the FBI.
The FBI publicly acknowledges that it doesn’t own the fingerprints: “They’re owned by the states, by the 18,000 law enforcement agencies across this country. They submit them to us and allow us to use them, we hold them and distribute them per [our] agreements with each of the states. And every state has a different law governing what records can be distributed and what they can be used for.” Documents recently obtained in an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation by the Center for Constitutional Rights, NDLON, and Cardozo Law School demonstrate that FBI brass know they’re violating these agreements. Recently uncovered e-mail exchanges among top FBI officials prove it.
FBI Assistant Director Jerome Pender, then in charge of the Bureau’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division, wrote on May 10, 2011 about the dilemma S-Comm causes for the FBI: “[W]e are stuck in the middle of a nuclear war. I don’t think we need DHS direction. I think we need AG direction. If we have to decide, I don’t see how we can use the [fingerprints] in a way the [state] owner explicitly bans. This could cause the whole CJIS model to implode.”
His CJIS colleague replied: “I agree. Any way we go will contradict one of our partners.”
The FBI and DOJ have been lying low on S-Comm, deferring inquiries to DHS despite being the conduit for S-Comm’s fingerprint-sharing. But Attorney General Eric Holder has the obligation to weigh in on S-Comm by honoring the FBI’s agreements with the states — the undisputed owners of these fingerprints.
DHS plans to implement S-Comm nationwide by 2013, despite knowing that the program violates contractual obligations between the states and the FBI. S-Comm is wasteful, has been rejected by the governors of Illinois, New York, and Massachusetts, encourages racial profiling, and prevents immigrants from reporting crimes. It has led to the detention and deportation of innocent crime victims and witnesses, including domestic violence survivors.
The DOJ is aware of all these problems, too. The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has reported on and is currently investigating a significant number of jurisdictions in which S-Comm has been implemented, for discriminatory policing targeting Latinos and other immigrants. Yet S-Comm continues to operate in these places.
The recent FOIA revelations provide yet another reason why DOJ isn’t an innocent party in the implementation of S-Comm. The nation’s leading law enforcement agency must not continue to breach its agreements with state and local partners, whose voluntary fingerprint submissions are the lifeblood of the FBI’s criminal investigations. DOJ must immediately re-commit to honoring its agreements with the states, and terminate the FBI’s involvement with S-Comm — a failed program that harms public safety every day.
Learn more about Secure Communities: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
DOJ’s Lawsuit Against South Carolina Latest Legal Challenge to State Immigration Laws
03 months ago
BY KAREN TUMLIN, MANAGING ATTORNEY, NATIONAL IMMIGRATION LAW CENTER
Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed suit against South Carolina, challenging the state’s extreme anti-immigration law (SB 20). With this action, the Department of Justice charges that South Carolina, like Arizona and Alabama, have passed unconstitutional immigration laws. Civil rights groups (including the National Immigration Law Center) agree. Coalitions have filed suit in five states—Utah, Indiana, Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina—that passed their own Arizona-inspired laws in 2011. Fortunately, most of these states have seen their new, misguided laws lose much of their bite through civil rights coalition-led legal challenges. Here’s a round-up of the status of these legal cases.
South Carolina
Yesterday, the DOJ filed a legal challenge to SB 20, South Carolina’s draconian anti-immigrant law. South Carolina’s law is the latest state anti-immigrant measure to be challenged in court. A civil rights coalition, including my organization, filed its legal challenge in mid-October to stop the South Carolina law from bringing untold damage to South Carolinian individuals, families, and businesses. A hearing to determine whether the law should be blocked during the legal battle has been set for December 19, 2011. This will allow the court to issue a ruling on the requests to halt the law before the law’s scheduled effective date of January 1, 2012.
Alabama
Alabama has recently earned dubious distinction as home to the most anti-immigrant law in the country. Reports out of the state include the widespread harassment of Latinos; utility companies threatening to shut off water and sewage services for clients who couldn’t prove their immigration status; Latino children asked for their immigration papers at school; and members of the immigrant community reporting that they are afraid to contact the police—even as victims of crime.
Although the district court blocked some portions of Alabama’s law (HB 56), it allowed other provisions to take effect, including provisions blocked by other courts across the country. However, in the Alabama case, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals took the unusual step of halting additional portions of the law pending appeal based on the harms that Alabamians were suffering from the short time the school verification and “papers, please” provisions were in effect. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit will hear arguments in the case in 2012.
Georgia
Georgia’s anti-immigrant law (HB 87), which generated protests from business owners, communities of color, and faith and civil rights leaders, also was challenged by a civil rights coalition. Key provisions of this law, including provisions that would have criminalized transporting undocumented individuals, including family members, and allowed police to check immigration status of all individuals lawfully stopped, were blocked from going into effect. The state has appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and argument is expected in 2012.
Indiana
Civil rights organizations quickly filed a legal challenge to stop key pieces of Indiana’s anti-immigrant law (SB 590) from going into effect. After a hearing, the court agreed with the civil rights coalition and blocked provisions of Indiana’s SB 1070 copycat legislation that outlawed use of consular-issued ID cards and allowed police officers to make warrantless arrests—two provisions that would undoubtedly have led to significant civil rights violations in the state. The defendants have decided not to appeal the court’s decision on the preliminary injunction, and the case is proceeding to consideration of a permanent injunction. Indianans can breathe a sigh of relief as these dangerous provisions will remain enjoined as the case moves forward to a final judgment.
Utah
With the passage of HB 497, Utah became the second state to pass an Arizona-inspired piece of legislation that targeted Utahans of color for discrimination. The law, which was signed on March 15, 2011, contains many of the same “show me your papers” provisions contained within the currently blocked Arizona law.
On May 3, the National Immigration Law Center, the American Civil Liberties Union, and the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah filed a class-action legal challenge to HB 497. Following a prompt hearing, the entire law was temporarily blocked, pending a hearing on the preliminary injunction request. That hearing to determine whether the law will remain blocked until the courts make a final determination of the law’s constitutionality has been set for December 2.
Arizona
The fight to permanently defeat Arizona’s SB 1070 is far from over. The state of Arizona has attempted to get the U.S. Supreme Court to hear a challenge to the preliminarily injunction blocking key portions of SB 1070 from taking effect. We are likely to find out in December 2011 whether the High Court will agree to hear the case. In the meantime, the civil rights coalition that challenged SB 1070 is moving forward to stop other portions of the law that were allowed to take effect. Just last week, the coalition filed a motion to preliminary enjoin the provisions in the law banning the hiring or solicitation of day labor in the state—provisions that violate basic First Amendment rights.
The Fight in 2012
Emboldened by Alabama’s current legal success, anti-immigrant legislators have vowed to use this draconian, racist law as a model in their own state houses as soon as state legislatures reconvene in 2012. What is happening today in Alabama could, sadly, be coming to a state near you. This is the time to let lawmakers know that these misguided attempts to terrify children, marginalize communities, and trample on sacrosanct constitutional rights will not be tolerated. While most courts faced with the legal questions surrounding these laws have resoundingly agreed that these laws fails constitutional muster, the ultimate battle will not be won in the court house. It will be won only by a steady and rising chorus of voices rejecting the politics of hate and division promoted by these laws.
Federal Appeals Court Enjoins Two Provisions of Alabama’s Extreme Immigration Law
03 months ago
Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit temporarily blocked two controversial provisions of Alabama’s extreme immigration law, HB 56. A federal appeals court enjoined the provision requiring public school to determine the immigration status of enrolling students and the status of their parents as well as the provision that made it a criminal misdemeanor for an unauthorized immigrant to fail to carry immigration documentation. The provision that requires law enforcement officers to determine the immigration status of those stopped, detained, or arrested whom they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally—along with other provisions—remains in effect. Meanwhile, according to the New York Times, the 11th Circuit court has expedited the appeals process and is scheduled to hear arguments within the next two months.
Biased Counterterrorism Trainings: Far More than One Bad Apple
04 months ago
On Wednesday, yet another report confirmed the use of factually incorrect and bigoted training materials on Islam and Muslims — this time by the Department of Justice. Wired published a 2010 PowerPoint presentation created for the U.S. Attorney in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, which teaches that "Islam is convinced of the superiority of its culture; and obsessed with the inferiority of its power" and that "No Major Muslim group has ever renounced the doctrine of jihad of the sword." It also includes a slide from a briefing by an FBI intelligence analyst notorious for his anti-Islam views, which claims that today, "Civilians, Juries, Lawyers, Media, Academia, and Charities" are engaged in a "Civilizational Jihad" in the United States. The article also reports that anti-Islam training materials are used in military intelligence schools, an online university geared towards people seeking jobs in intelligence, and the Army’s center at Fort Leavenworth.
This expose echoes recent reporting about anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bias in numerous FBI trainings, including a 2009 power point employing stereotypes of the "Arabic mind" obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the ACLU of Northern California and Asian Law Caucus. Yet, biased training materials are only the tip of the iceberg; federal intelligence reports from as early as 2006 also contain similarly erroneous information or bigoted views.
These reports confirm what the ACLU has suspected: training materials and intelligence reports reflecting an anti-Muslim and anti-Arab viewpoint are not the result of isolated bad apples. They have been used by federal authorities for years — despite their factual flaws and lack of empirical support — painting millions of Muslims, Arabs, and South Asians with the broad brush of terrorism.
Yet, biased and inaccurate trainings and intelligence reports are inappropriate and inherently counterproductive. They drive a wedge between the government and minority communities and result in biased policing, a hostile workplace for Arab and Muslim-American law enforcement personnel, and more broadly, an environment in which entire communities are wrongly treated with suspicion and subjected to unequal application of the law.
In response to these revelations, the FBI and Department of Justice have recently called for reviews of their counterterrorism training materials referencing religion and culture. This is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough. The ACLU and other civil rights and civil liberties groups issued a letter earlier this week urging the FBI to identify and withdraw both training materials and intelligence products that are factually inaccurate or contain assertions or analysis based on racial, ethnic or religious bias or political ideology. The DOJ should do the same. And both agencies should issue revised guidance clearly stating that religious practices and political advocacy are protected activities under the First Amendment, and are not indicators of future violence.
Learn more about anti-Muslim bias: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
Federal Judge Denies DOJ’s Request to Stay Alabama’s Immigration Law
04 months ago
Today, U.S. District Judge Sharon Blackburn denied the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to stay her previous ruling last week which kept major portions of Alabama’s restrictive immigration law, HB 56, intact. Following the judge’s ruling, the DOJ requested a stay of the law pending an appeal to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Among the provisions Judge Blackburn kept, one requires police to determine the immigration status of those stopped, detained, or arrested whom they reasonably suspect is in the country illegally. Another provision requires public schools to determine the immigration status of enrolling students. Pending a stay from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, HB 56 will remain in effect.
Shame on Alabama
04 months ago
In the six days since Alabama’s extreme anti-immigrant law has been in effect, the impact on communities across the state has been chilling. Parents are pulling their children out of school for fear of being forced to reveal their immigration status and some families are fleeing the state in order to avoid being separated from their children. According to an article in the New York Times today, "1,988 Hispanic students were absent on Friday, about 5 percent of the entire Hispanic population of the school system." An immigrant services helpline reported that they had received over a 1000 calls from people seeking assistance; some calls were from pregnant women afraid to go to the hospital, others from victims of crimes who now fear going to the police.
Although Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley is boasting of his "victory" in court, it is undoubtedly a shameful moment in Alabama’s history, leaving thousands of Alabamians vulnerable to a myriad of civil rights abuses.
The nationwide shock and sadness over the court’s ruling is palpable. An editorial in the New York Times today condemned Alabama for its unconscionable treatment of its own residents:
…[A]ttendance of Hispanic children has dropped noticeably since the word went out that school officials are now required to check the immigration status of newly enrolled students and their parents.
That rule is part of the law’s sweeping attempt to curtail the rights and complicate the lives of people without papers, making them unable to enter contracts, find jobs, rent homes or access government services. In other words, to be isolated, unemployable, poor, defenseless and uneducated.
…[O]ne has to wonder at such counterproductive cruelty. Do Alabamans want children too frightened to go to school? Or pregnant women too frightened to seek care? Whom could that possibly benefit?
The ACLU is appealing the court’s ruling. No family living in the United States should be afraid to send their child to school.
Take action: Urge the Department of Justice to challenge other anti-immigrant laws in Utah, Georgia and South Carolina.
Learn more about immigrants’ rights: Sign up for breaking news alerts, follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.
What You Should Know About Initial Rulings on Alabama’s Immigration Law
04 months ago
Yesterday’s initial rulings from Judge Sharon Blackburn over Alabama’s new anti-immigrant legislation are disturbing and disappointing on many fronts. Absent a reversal of her decision based on an emergency appeal, many provisions of the law that mirror those struck down in every other jurisdiction will go into effect. If so, everyone in Alabama will pay the price of the law’s implementation—and there can be no doubt that residents of Alabama with dark skin, a foreign sounding name, or an accent will face more questions, intrusions, and humiliations. From a legal perspective, however, declarations of a “victory” for Alabama by media outlets and anti-immigrants’ rights groups are premature. The truth is much more complicated.
Spanning three lawsuits and totaling more than 200 pages—yesterday’s rulings temporarily blocked a number of H.B. 56’s most onerous provisions, failed to reach the merits of others, and rejected a key argument on which Alabama and other states with similar laws have relied. Following, then, are a number of points that should be kept in mind when reading about the decisions.
First, contrary to media assertions, no provision of H.B. 56 was “upheld” yesterday. Rather, Judge Blackburn merely declined to enter a preliminary injunction against certain provisions of the law pending a full trial on the merits. As the judge explained, a preliminary injunction—which prevents a law from even going into effect—is an “extraordinary and drastic remedy” that “must be granted reluctantly and only upon a clear showing that the injunction before trial is definitely demanded.” Thus, while the granting of a preliminary injunction is highly uncommon, the denial of a temporary injunction is routine—and in no way forecloses Judge Blackburn from reaching a contrary conclusion after a full trial.
Second, even where Alabama escaped the entry of a preliminary injunction, it did not always persuade the Judge that its legal position was correct. For example, Alabama did not “prevail” in its defense of the most controversial provision of the law—Section 28—which requires school districts to determine and report the immigration status of all newly enrolling students born abroad or to undocumented parents. Instead, Judge Blackburn refrained from deciding the constitutional challenge to the provision because she found none of civil rights’ plaintiffs possessed “standing” to raise the claim in court—e.g. that neither the suing organizations nor any of their members faced sufficiently imminent injury to obtain an injunction. As a consequence, the constitutionality of Section 28 remains very much an open question in the case—and Judge Blackburn’s standing analysis is ripe for challenge on appeal.
Moreover, while it is disappointing that Judge Blackburn declined to enter a preliminary injunction against Section 12—which requires state and local law enforcement agents to verify the immigration status of individuals they reasonably suspect of being in the country unlawfully—Alabama should have little cause for celebration. For one thing, Judge Blackburn flatly rejected the argument that state law enforcement agents have “inherent authority” to arrest noncitizens for mere civil violations of federal immigration law—the same conclusion reached by the Ninth Circuit in upholding the injunction against S.B. 1070. In addition, Judge Blackburn noted that Section 12 is likely to result in lawsuits against untrained state officers who detain people for unconstitutionally excessive periods of time pending immigration status check. Thus, far from giving Alabama a victory, Judge Blackburn signaled that the state was inviting future litigation.
Third, Judge Blackburn did in fact enter a preliminary injunction against a slew of provision in H.B. 56, including: Section 8, which would have prevented many legal immigrants from attending state colleges, including refugees and persons with Temporary Protected Status; Section 11, which would have outlawed the solicitation or performance of work by “unauthorized aliens”; Section 13, which would have made transporting or renting to an undocumented immigrant a state crime; and Sections 16 and 17, which would have forbidden employers from deducting compensation paid to undocumented workers as business expenses, and allowed other workers to sue the companies for damages in court.
Finally, and also contrary to media assertions, yesterday’s rulings do not necessarily increase the chances that the Supreme Court will agree to hear the state of Arizona’s challenge to the injunction against S.B. 1070. As we previously noted, Arizona faces an uphill climb in persuading the Justices to hear the case, in part because little to no disagreement exists among federal appeals courts on the underlying issues involved. Because yesterday’s decision was issued by a federal trial judge (and is only temporary in any event), it will likely be irrelevant to the Justices’ calculus. If anything, it may give the Justices’ reason to reject Arizona’s petition, so as to afford more lower courts an opportunity to rule on the underlying issues.
In sum, while disappointing in some respects, Judge Blackburn’s rulings are far from a full-fledged victory for proponents S.B. 1070, H.B. 56, and other copycat laws. Instead, the outcome was more akin to a split-decision—and the opponents of the law remain in a prime position to prevail during the rematch.
Photo by