In April 2010, in response to a serious problem of unauthorized
immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border, the State
of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy.
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods
Act, as amended by H.B. 2162 ("S.B. 1070"), "make[s] attrition
through enforcement the public policy of all state and
local government agencies in Arizona." S.B. 1070 § 1. The
provisions of S.B. 1070 are distinct from federal immigration
laws. To achieve this policy of attrition, S.B. 1070 establishes
a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defines the
immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona's state and
local law enforcement officers.
Before Arizona's new immigration law went into effect, the
United States sued the State of Arizona in federal district
court alleging that S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause
on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and
Nationality Act ("INA"), and that it violated the Commerce
Clause. Along with its complaint, the United States filed a
motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin implementation
of S.B. 1070 in its entirety until a final decision is made about
its constitutionality. Although the United States requested that
the law be enjoined in its entirety, it specifically argued facial
challenges to only six select provisions of the law. United
States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992 (D. Ariz. 2010).
The district court granted the United States' motion for a
preliminary injunction in part, enjoining enforcement of S.B.
1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6, on the basis that federal
law likely preempts these provisions. Id. at 1008. Arizona
appealed the grant of injunctive relief, arguing that these four
sections are not likely preempted; the United States did not
cross-appeal the partial denial of injunctive relief. Thus, the
United States' likelihood of success on its federal preemption
argument against these four sections is the central issue this
appeal presents.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We hold that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by enjoining S.B. 1070 Sections
2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6. Therefore, we affirm the district court's
preliminary injunction order enjoining these certain provisions
of S.B. 1070.
Read a copy of the full decision at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/04/11/10-16645_opinion.pdf
-----
Luba.
Immigration Attorney.
www.law-visa-usa.com
immigration along the Arizona-Mexico border, the State
of Arizona enacted its own immigration law enforcement policy.
Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods
Act, as amended by H.B. 2162 ("S.B. 1070"), "make[s] attrition
through enforcement the public policy of all state and
local government agencies in Arizona." S.B. 1070 § 1. The
provisions of S.B. 1070 are distinct from federal immigration
laws. To achieve this policy of attrition, S.B. 1070 establishes
a variety of immigration-related state offenses and defines the
immigration-enforcement authority of Arizona's state and
local law enforcement officers.
Before Arizona's new immigration law went into effect, the
United States sued the State of Arizona in federal district
court alleging that S.B. 1070 violated the Supremacy Clause
on the grounds that it was preempted by the Immigration and
Nationality Act ("INA"), and that it violated the Commerce
Clause. Along with its complaint, the United States filed a
motion for injunctive relief seeking to enjoin implementation
of S.B. 1070 in its entirety until a final decision is made about
its constitutionality. Although the United States requested that
the law be enjoined in its entirety, it specifically argued facial
challenges to only six select provisions of the law. United
States v. Arizona, 703 F. Supp. 2d 980, 992 (D. Ariz. 2010).
The district court granted the United States' motion for a
preliminary injunction in part, enjoining enforcement of S.B.
1070 Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6, on the basis that federal
law likely preempts these provisions. Id. at 1008. Arizona
appealed the grant of injunctive relief, arguing that these four
sections are not likely preempted; the United States did not
cross-appeal the partial denial of injunctive relief. Thus, the
United States' likelihood of success on its federal preemption
argument against these four sections is the central issue this
appeal presents.
We have jurisdiction to review the district court's order
under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1). We hold that the district court
did not abuse its discretion by enjoining S.B. 1070 Sections
2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6. Therefore, we affirm the district court's
preliminary injunction order enjoining these certain provisions
of S.B. 1070.
Read a copy of the full decision at: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2011/04/11/10-16645_opinion.pdf
-----
Luba.
Immigration Attorney.
www.law-visa-usa.com
__._,_.___
< Yahoo Immigration Forum: Please visit our website http://www.law-visa-usa.com/contact_us.html . >
MARKETPLACE
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment