By Stephanie McCrummen and William Branigin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 28, 2010; 4:55 PM

A federal judge in Phoenix on Wednesday blocked key provisions of Arizona's controversial immigration law from taking effect as scheduled Thursday, granting in part an injunction requested by the Obama administration.

U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled that the injunction would apply to the portion of the state law that requires police to try to determine the immigration status of a person they arrest, stop or detain while enforcing other laws if they reasonably suspect the person is in the United States illegally.

In a lawsuit filed against Arizona, the Obama administration said the law was unconstitutional and warned that the provision would result in racial profiling and harassment of U.S. citizens, legal immigrants and foreign visitors.

Bolton said in her 36-page ruling that it was "not in the public interest" for Arizona to enforce provisions that preempt federal enforcement of immigration law.

Also put on hold were parts of the law requiring foreigners to apply for or carry certain documents, making it a state crime for undocumented workers "to solicit, apply for or perform work," and mandating verification of the immigration status of any arrested person prior to release, the ruling said.

Bolton ruled that the partial injunction should apply until the issues are resolved by the courts.

The ruling means that other portions of the law, known as SB 1070, will take effect Thursday at 12:01 a.m. Among them are provisions that prohibit state authorities from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws and that make it a crime to impede traffic by picking up day laborers.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R), who signed SB 1070 into law in April with an effective date of July 29, indicated that she would appeal.

"Obviously it's a little bump in the road," she told reporters in Phoenix. We knew regardless of what happened today, of course, one side or the other was going to appeal, so this begins the process. . . . They haven't heard really the merits of the bill. This is just an injunction, a temporary injunction."

The Justice Department welcomed the decision, saying the court "ruled correctly when it prevented key provisions" of the law from taking effect.

"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August said. "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."

She said the administration "takes its responsibility to secure our borders seriously and has dedicated unprecedented resources to that effort." The government "will continue to work toward smarter and more effective enforcement of our laws while pressing for a comprehensive approach that provides true security and strengthens accountability and responsibility in our immigration system at the national level," August said.

Advocacy groups that were planning various campaigns of civil disobedience to protest the law said they were pleased with the partial injunction. But they emphasized that the ruling is temporary and said the underlying issues that produced the legislation remain.

"It's not a full victory," Pablo Alvarado, executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, said by telephone as he stood in front of the federal courthouse in Phoenix where some protesters and reporters had gathered. "The conditions that gave birth to SB 1070 are still on the table."

Alvarado noted that a part of the law related to how day laborers solicit work remains in effect, and he said his group would be "standing in solidarity" with day laborers when that provision takes effect Thursday.

He and others said they would also stage a protest later Wednesday at the Phoenix office of controversial Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has taken an aggressive approach to combating illegal immigration. Arpaio has vowed to go forward with his 17th crime and immigration sweep across the county, which includes Phoenix, in the sort of action that some of the law's supporters had hoped would become the norm in Arizona.

"Arpaio is having a rally today," Alvarado said. "So the hate continues."

The law had created confusion among police chiefs and sheriffs around the state, who said it was poorly written and threatened to divert them from more urgent public safety matters. Some expressed relief at the judge's ruling.

"I am pleased that the aspects which we put forward as problematic for enforcement are precisely the aspects that Judge Bolton ruled on today," said Tucson Police Chief Roberto Villaseñor, who filed a declaration supporting the Justice Department's lawsuit. "This legislation was worded in such a way that was hard to give a clear understanding" to officers on how to implement it.

"It's an important signal from the federal courts about the limitations of local law enforcement in enforcing immigration laws," said Alessandra Soler Meetze, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which filed one of the seven lawsuits challenging the law. "A single state's frustration with federal policy can't be allowed to hijack the federal government's authority."

At least one group that had supported Arizona's law provided a glimpse Wednesday of how some conservatives are likely to cast Bolton's ruling politically.

"The president of the United States and this judge just took the side of illegal immigrants against the American citizenry," said William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration Political Action Committee. "America is going to cry out in anger. Our mission is to channel that anger into political activities designed to rebuke the politicians and business leaders and special interest groups behind this invasion. That includes Obama, John McCain, Republican and Democratic candidates."

Before the ruling, a small army of demonstrators descended on Phoenix, filling the streets in front of the state capitol and around the federal courthouse to protest the law. The protesters were planning various forms of civil disobedience in the event that the law took effect.

"Our message for tomorrow is noncompliance," said Liz Hourican, an organizer with the group Code Pink, which is involved in the protests. "Don't buy, don't comply and peaceful resistance. We're telling people don't bring your papers, don't bring your IDs."

Meanwhile, many police chiefs and sheriffs around the state remained confused about various parts of the law. Some voiced serious reservations about a law that essentially turns police into immigration officials.

"I guess everyone is on needles and pins right now; that's the best way to express it," said Sheriff Antonio Estrada in Santa Cruz County, on the Mexican border. "If this thing goes through, we've got a nightmare on our hands," he said before Bolton's ruling.

When it was signed in April, the law drew immediate objections from the Obama administration and civil rights groups. President Obama called the law "misguided," and it promptly came under legal challenge.

The Justice Department filed suit against Arizona on July 6, charging that the law unconstitutionally establishes a state immigration policy in a manner that interferes with federal law. The department asked for a preliminary injunction to prevent enforcement of the law as scheduled beginning Thursday.

In its motion for an injunction, the Justice Department argued that "the Constitution and federal law do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country.

"Arizona's immigration policy does not simply provide legitimate assistance to the federal government but instead exceeds a state's role with respect to aliens, interferes with the federal government's balanced administration of the immigration laws, and critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives," the motion said.

In her ruling, Bolton said several provisions of SB 1070 are subject to a temporary injunction because the government is likely to succeed in showing that they are preempted by federal law. She summarized the provisions as:

-- "requiring that an officer make a reasonable attempt to determine the immigration status of a person stopped, detained or arrested if there is a reasonable suspicion that the person is unlawfully present in the United States, and requiring verification of the immigration status of any person arrested prior to releasing that person;

-- "creating a crime for the failure to apply for or carry alien registration papers;

-- "creating a crime for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work;

-- "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person where there is probable cause to believe the person has committed a public offense that makes the person removable from the United States."

If those provisions took effect, "such enforcement would likely burden legal resident aliens and interfere with federal policy," Bolton wrote.

She added: "The Court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money. Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

In an interview Tuesday on CNN, Brewer said one of her main priorities was "getting everybody to actually understand what the bill actually does" and ensuring that police are trained to enforce it properly.

"It's not much different than what they've always did," she said. "But there's been such misunderstanding and mistruth in reference to Senate Bill 1070."

Asked about concerns that the law would result in discrimination against Latinos, Brewer said: "I'm sure that there will be claims of racial discrimination, unfortunately. But, you know, I really believe that our law enforcement officers are so well trained, they understand what America's all about. And that it's illegal. And that it's not going to happen."

The Arizona law "absolutely mirrors federal law," Brewer said. "And we are being invaded by illegal immigration in the state of Arizona. And this is another tool. And we are just helping the feds do their job because they won't do it. The bottom line is that the people of Arizona are frustrated."

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat who is running against Brewer in the Nov. 2 gubernatorial election, issued a statement Wednesday blasting his political rival's handling of the immigration issue.

"Jan Brewer played politics with immigration, and she lost," Goddard said after the federal court's ruling. "Rather than providing the leadership Arizona needs to solve the immigration problem, Jan Brewer signed a bill she could not defend in court which has led to boycotts, jeopardized our tourism industry and polarized our state."

Political leaders should "look beyond election-year grandstanding and begin to repair the damage to Arizona's image and economy," Goddard said. "Now, we should start making smart decisions about immigration -- beyond sound bites, fear mongering and political stunts."