Arizona Governor Jan Brewer filed an expedited appeal with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals July 29 following a preliminary injunction placed by U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton halting most of the key components of the state’s immigration law SB1070.
La gobernadora de Arizona, Jan Brewer, alzó una apelación acelerada con el Noveno Tribunal Distrital de Apelaciones el 29 de julio tras el mandato judicial que sentara la jueza Susan Bolton del Tribunal Estadounidense Distrital, que obliga el cese de la mayoría de los componentes claves de la ley estatal migratoria SB1070.
“Arizona has been suffering a consequence of illegal immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government,” the appeal stated.
An expedited appeal requires a motion panel of three judges from the 9th Circuit, selected at random from a pool of 45, to decide whether the injunction poses “irreparable harm.” If so, it would be lifted, allowing SB1070 to come into full effect.
“I will battle all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary, for the right to protect the citizens of Arizona,” Brewer said a few hours after Bolton issued the injunction.
Bolton’s ruling halted major components of Arizona SB1070 from taking effect the following day — 90 days after Brewer signed it into law.
Her ruling came less than 24 hours before full enforcement would have gone into effect, just as police officials were making last-minute compliance preparations.
Bolton ruled that if Arizona were to implement SB1070, it would interfere with federal policy. The injunction allows the federal government to continue pursuing federal priorities in the public interest until a final judgment is reached, Bolton, a Philadelphia native and Bill Clinton appointee, ruled.
The injunction limits SB1070’s full bite by blocking police from questioning a person’s legal status during routine investigations and eliminating mandatory detention of individuals who cannot verify their legal status at the time of arrest.
In addition, it strikes the “show me your papers” provision that requires individuals to carry documentation at all times and keeps authorities from labeling someone “removable” from the United States or conducting a warrantless arrest.
The law retains two provisions which trouble Latino advocates: 1) It still prohibits hiring of undocumented immigrants. 2) It allows Arizona to block cities within the state from becoming sanctuaries to undocumented immigrants.
Alessandra Soler-Meetze, executive director of ACLU Arizona, told Hispanic Link that Bolton’s decision was important in defining limits of local jurisdictions’ authority.
“States that are considering similar measures should definitely take note that they simply can’t hijack federal authority and create their own state immigration schemes which conflict with federal priorities and really do nothing to protect the residents of the state,” Soler-Meetze said.
Other voices, such as Arizona-based advocacy group Puente, weren’t as receptive. It claimed via Twitter, “We will not comply with the criminalization of our communities! Partial injunction is not victory.”
Reaction from those who favor the Arizona law was just as vibrant. Brewer called the injunction a “little bump on the road.” Arizona state Senator Russell Pearce, who authored the bill, told CNN he wrote the law with the Supreme Court in mind. He predicted it would be upheld in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling.
William Gheen, president of Americans for Legal Immigration, also voiced displeasure.
“There’s a wave of anger sweeping the United States today,” Gheen said. “Between 60 and 80 percent of the American public supported the Arizona law, and Americans feel that President Obama and this judge have thwarted democracy, and we’re advising all illegal immigrants to exit the country as soon as possible due to the rising anger in the American public.”
