Alabama Wins in Ruling on Its Immigration Law
Published: September 28, 2011 - New York Times
A federal judge on Wednesday upheld most of the sections of Alabama’s
far-reaching immigration
law that had been challenged by the Obama administration, including portions
that had been blocked in other states.
The decision,
by Judge Sharon Lovelace Blackburn of Federal District Court in Birmingham,
makes it much more likely that the fate of the recent flurry of state laws
against illegal immigration will eventually be decided by the Supreme
Court. It also means that Alabama now has by far the strictest such law of
any state.
“Today Judge Blackburn upheld the majority of our law,” Gov. Robert Bentley
said in a brief statement he delivered outside the State Capitol in Montgomery.
“With those parts that were upheld, we have the strongest immigration law in the
country.”
The judge did issue a preliminary injunction against several sections of the
law, agreeing with the government’s case that they pre-empted federal law. She
blocked a broad provision that outlawed the harboring or transporting of illegal
immigrants and another that barred illegal immigrants from enrolling in or
attending public universities.
The governor, in his statement, said he believed even the sections that were
temporarily enjoined on Wednesday would eventually be upheld, and added that the
state would consider appealing if that did not happen.
For the most part, Judge Blackburn, who was appointed by the elder President
George Bush, disagreed with the Justice Department’s arguments, including those
that had been successful in challenges to laws in Arizona and Georgia.
The judge upheld a section that requires state and local law enforcement
officials to try to verify a person’s immigration status during routine traffic
stops or arrests, if “a reasonable suspicion” exists that the person is in the
country illegally. And she ruled that a section that criminalized the “willful
failure” of a person in the country illegally to carry federal immigration
papers did not pre-empt federal law.
In both cases, she rejected the reasoning of district and appeals courts that
had blocked similar portions of Arizona’s law. Legal experts expected the
Justice Department to appeal.
“The department is reviewing the decision to determine next steps,” Xochitl
Hinojosa, a department spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We will continue to
evaluate state immigration-related laws and will not hesitate to bring suit if,
in fact, a state creates its own immigration policy or enforces state laws in a
manner that interferes with federal immigration law.”
The Alabama law was the latest, and broadest, of the state laws against
illegal immigration, going further than one passed in Arizona.
While Alabama is estimated to have a relatively small population of people
who are in the country illegally, the numbers have been growing.
Acting on a pledge that they would crack down on illegal immigration,
Republicans passed the bill when they won a supermajority in the State
Legislature in the 2010 elections. Mr. Bentley signed it into law in June.
Del Marsh, the Republican president pro tem of the Alabama Senate, said in a
statement after Wednesday’s ruling, “Our goal has always been to make sure
Alabama jobs and taxpayer-funded resources are going to legal Alabama residents,
and Judge Blackburn’s ruling is a significant win for this cause.”
All summer, rallies for and against the law have been taking place throughout
the state. Farmers and even the state agriculture commissioner have raised
concerns about the law’s effect on farms, sheriffs have condemned it as too
onerous for financially hurting counties and others have worried that it could
seriously hinder the state’s efforts to rebuild after last April’s devastating
tornadoes.
The law’s backers argued that most of the concerns arose out of a misreading
of the law that they believed in some cases was intentional.
The judge ruled on three suits challenging the law on Wednesday, one brought
by the federal government, another by a group of church leaders and another
brought by civil rights groups.
She dismissed the suit brought by church leaders, who had argued that the law
prevented them from carrying out crucial duties of their ministry, concluding
that they did not have standing to challenge one part of the law and that she
had addressed the other challenge in her ruling on the federal law.
Judge Blackburn agreed with the arguments of the civil rights groups on
several sections or subsections of the law, but did not address many of their
arguments because they overlapped with those put forth in the Justice
Department’s suit.
“We’re really disappointed,” said Andre Segura of the American Civil
Liberties Union, a plaintiff in one of the suits. “We already know that this is
going to cause a lot of problems in Alabama.”
The civil rights groups are planning an appeal.
Among the other sections Judge Blackburn upheld: one that nullifies any
contracts entered into by an illegal immigrant; another that forbids any
transaction between an illegal immigrant and any division of the state, a
proscription that has already led to the denial of a Montgomery man’s
application for water and sewage service; and, most controversially, a section
that requires elementary and secondary schools to determine the immigration
status of incoming students.
The civil rights groups challenged this last section on the ground that it
would unlawfully deter students from enrolling in school, even if it did not
explicitly allow schools to turn students away. The judge dismissed their
challenge for lack of standing, though she did not rule on the argument’s
merits.
Peter J. Spiro, a law professor at Temple University, said: “This decision
really gives the anti-immigration folks more of a victory than they’ve been
getting in other courts. There’s a lot for them to be happy about.”
Still, Professor Spiro added, “This is not the last word on the
constitutionality of this statute.”