Examiner
Few issues are more hotly contested today than immigration law and few laws produce debate like Arizona’s SB1070, set to take effect on July 29.
Friday, however, was a big day for SB1070.
Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, speaking on a Latin American news television show, said that the Obama administration planned to bring a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new immigration law. The Department of Justice, the federal agency that would be responsible for bringing such a legal challenge, would only say that it was “continuing to review the law.” Nonetheless, a “senior administration official” apparently told CBS News that the Justice Department IS formally preparing to sue the state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, late Friday afternoon, Arizona’s Attorney General, Terry Goddard, announced that his office would NOT represent the state in ANY lawsuits arising over SB1070. This means that the Governor’s office would have to rely on its own attorneys for what is expected to be a slew of legal challenges.
It will be interesting to see what the courts do with a federal challenge to a State immigration law. If a State law conflicts with a valid federal law, the federal law will “preempt” the State law. In this case, it isn’t clear whether the Arizona law CONFLICTS with any provisions of our complex federal immigration code.
How will the Obama Administration challenge the Arizona law if it does NOT conflict with existing federal immigration law?
Hilary Clinton said that the Obama Administration is going to argue that it believes that it is the job of the federal government to create immigration policy, not the States. Without a basis for preemption, will this argument prevail in court?
Article I of the U.S. Constitution specifically lists what Congress is allowed to do. In what is known as the Commerce Clause, Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce. Over time, the courts have decided that even if there is no conflicting, existing federal law (i.e., no basis for preemption), States still cannot create laws regulating interstate commerce. This is now known as the “dormant Commerce Clause.” It is the inference that because Congress was directed to regulate interstate commerce, individual States cannot.
The basis for our complex federal immigration code is in Article I as well, where Congress is directed to create a “uniform rule of Naturalization” for the United States. The question is whether the same inference will be made in the area of immigration that was made in the area of interstate commerce.
The Justice Department cannot file a lawsuit until the Arizona law takes effect.
Friday, however, was a big day for SB1070.
Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, speaking on a Latin American news television show, said that the Obama administration planned to bring a lawsuit to prevent the implementation of Arizona’s new immigration law. The Department of Justice, the federal agency that would be responsible for bringing such a legal challenge, would only say that it was “continuing to review the law.” Nonetheless, a “senior administration official” apparently told CBS News that the Justice Department IS formally preparing to sue the state of Arizona.
Meanwhile, late Friday afternoon, Arizona’s Attorney General, Terry Goddard, announced that his office would NOT represent the state in ANY lawsuits arising over SB1070. This means that the Governor’s office would have to rely on its own attorneys for what is expected to be a slew of legal challenges.
It will be interesting to see what the courts do with a federal challenge to a State immigration law. If a State law conflicts with a valid federal law, the federal law will “preempt” the State law. In this case, it isn’t clear whether the Arizona law CONFLICTS with any provisions of our complex federal immigration code.
How will the Obama Administration challenge the Arizona law if it does NOT conflict with existing federal immigration law?
Hilary Clinton said that the Obama Administration is going to argue that it believes that it is the job of the federal government to create immigration policy, not the States. Without a basis for preemption, will this argument prevail in court?
Article I of the U.S. Constitution specifically lists what Congress is allowed to do. In what is known as the Commerce Clause, Congress is empowered to regulate interstate commerce. Over time, the courts have decided that even if there is no conflicting, existing federal law (i.e., no basis for preemption), States still cannot create laws regulating interstate commerce. This is now known as the “dormant Commerce Clause.” It is the inference that because Congress was directed to regulate interstate commerce, individual States cannot.
The basis for our complex federal immigration code is in Article I as well, where Congress is directed to create a “uniform rule of Naturalization” for the United States. The question is whether the same inference will be made in the area of immigration that was made in the area of interstate commerce.
The Justice Department cannot file a lawsuit until the Arizona law takes effect.
No comments:
Post a Comment