US Supreme Court to rule on immigration

December 12, 2011 5:54 pm

US Supreme Court to rule on immigration

By James Politi in Washington

The US Supreme Court will rule next year on whether Arizona’s tough immigration law violates the constitution, in a case bound to inflame the debate over foreign workers in the heat of the 2012 election campaign.

The decision by America’s highest court will hinge on whether the panel of judges finds that Arizona overstepped its jurisdiction in 2010 when it passed a series of measures designed to clamp down on illegal immigrants. States typically defer to federal authorities when it comes to immigration policy.

The Arizona law was highly controversial, particularly a provision requiring law enforcement officials to determine the immigration status of any person they stop whom they suspect to be in the country illegally.

The measure raised howls of protest from civil liberties organisations and Hispanic groups across the country, who complained about discrimination and harassment.

This set up a fierce battle with some conservatives and anti-immigration activists who praised the law as necessary to stem the flow of illegal workers into the US.

The Obama administration has been challenging the law as unconstitutional – and has won several key battles in federal appeals courts, including the Ninth Circuit Court. For this reason, the White House had been opposed to a Supreme Court review of the case, arguing that was not necessary.

But Arizona’s demand that the highest court make a ruling in the case were granted, and a final verdict on the Arizona law will be handed down in the middle of next year, probably around July.

Supporters of Arizona’s law argue that the law was intended to complement, rather than replace, federal immigration policies, at a time when these were failing to function effectively.

“Arizona has been more than patient waiting for Washington to secure the border,” said Jan Brewer, Arizona governor. “Decades of federal inaction and misguided policy have created a dangerous and unacceptable situation, and states deserve clarity from the court in terms of what role they have in fighting illegal immigration.”

On Monday, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, would only say: “We look forward to arguing our point of view in that case when the time comes.”

The Obama administration has challenged the legality of three other restrictive state immigration laws as well – in South Carolina, Alabama and Utah – and their fate could hinge on the Arizona ruling.

“Our major concern is the end result,” said Elena Lacayo, immigration field officer at the National Council of La Raza, a Hispanic organisation. “If they allow this bill to stand, it would open the door to a patchwork immigration system ... It could mean checking documents at state lines.”

Typically, all nine judges on the Supreme Court deliver a ruling, but in this case Justice Elena Kagan will be recusing herself because she worked on the matter in her previous job as US solicitor-general.

Politically, the Arizona ruling, which will come at roughly the same time as a ruling on the constitutionality of the 2010 health reform law, could become a potent weapon in the hands of whichever side emerges victorious from the decision.

If the law is upheld, Republicans could use it to validate the legitimacy of their tough immigration position, while if the law is rejected, Democrats could argue that it represents the latest examples of conservative extremism.