Nation Of Law: Law, Litigation and Consequences: June 2012

Thursday, June 28, 2012

Opinions Anticipated in Court Ruling

Story first appeared in USA Today.

Tea Party and union members, liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats have two things in common as the Supreme Court prepares to announce its verdict on President Obama's health care law Thursday.

They have no clue what the court will decide. And they will have plenty to say outside the court immediately after — in high praise or denunciation.

Much like the court's three days of oral arguments on the Affordable Care Act in late March, Thursday will feature a crowded, hushed courtroom and a cacophonous series of sidewalk demonstrations.

For some lawyers and lawmakers who have fought the health care battle for years — and in some cases, decades — it's an opportunity to witness history inside the marble courthouse.

There's an atmosphere of intense, quiet excitement. People are sitting in that room knowing history is about to be made.

The executive director of the health consumer group Families USA, has been there the past three days the court delivered opinions, just in case health care was among them. Thursday, he plans to arrive several hours early to make sure he picks up every nuance from the nine justices.

His allies will be outside as well, to react before dozens of TV cameras. Within minutes, the group plans to send its analysis and recommendations for further action to more than 100,000 supporters. It has prepared eight news releases based on potential court rulings.

On the other side of the debate, Tea Party demonstrators also will be out in force. They plan a "flash rally" in front of the court, thanks to "Minutemen" coming from hours away.

Within 36 hours, the Tea Party Patriots plan a teleconference for their members with key opponents of the law.

Members of Congress will be inside and outside. The House Speaker will dispatch two members of his leadership team. The Speaker has vowed to seek repeal of any portions of the law left standing by the court.

Liberal Democrats, anticipating that the court's conservative majority may strike at least part of the law, plan to march from the Capitol to the court with signs urging "Medicare for all," a type of government-run health care.

Some of the most prominent advocates involved with the case won't attend — they'll be busy reading and responding.

A Georgetown University law professor and plaintiff in the case on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business, will be reading the justices' opinions, writing on legal blog sites, doing radio commentary and fielding a steady stream of media calls.

For more national and worldwide Business News, visit the Peak News Room blog.

For more local and state of Michigan Business News, visit the Michigan Business News blog.

For more Health News, visit the Healthcare and Medical News blog.

For more Electronics News, visit the Electronics America blog.

For more Real Estate News, visit the Commercial and Residential Real Estate blog.

For more Law News, visit the Nation of Law blog.

For more Advertising News, visit the Advertising, Marketing and Media blog.

For more Environmental News, visit the Environmental Responsibility News blog.

For information on website optimization or for the latest SEO News, visit the SEO Done Right blog.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Arizona Immigration Law Gets Cut up

Story first appeared in The Wall Street Journal.

The Supreme Court struck down the harshest parts of an Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants, ruling the state interfered with congressional authority over U.S. borders, but it let stand a requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for traffic or other offenses.

By a vote of 6-2, the court voided a provision making it a state crime for an immigrant to fail to carry federal registration papers. By 5-3 votes, it invalidated sections that authorized jail time for illegal immigrants who seek work in Arizona and that gave state and local police more power to arrest immigrants suspected of offenses.

Arizona's one victory came in the court's decision to uphold the status-check provision. Federal law already requires immigration authorities to respond to checks from state and local officers, indicating that Congress saw nothing wrong with such consultation between arms of government.

The ruling on the state law, known as SB 1070, was greeted with cautious favor from people on both sides of immigration debate. Opponents of the law were generally relieved and said the ruling lifted some of the fears illegal immigrants felt about being picked up by state police during everyday activities. But they said much would depend on how the surviving provision is interpreted.

There's still going to be a lot of uncertainty until it's clear how police will approach this, according to Columbus Immigration Lawyers.

The Maricopa County, Ariz., Sheriff, known for his tough stance on illegal immigrants, said the most important part of the law was upheld.

Although the status-check provision contains no criminal sanctions or authority for the state to hold illegal immigrants without federal permission, it emerged as the flash point of controversy over effectively enlisting every Arizona law officer in a state campaign to "discourage and deter" the presence of illegal immigrants, as the statute says.

Raleigh Immigration Lawyers feel that the court left open the possibility that the surviving provision could be challenged, should it lead to prolonged detentions solely to determine immigration status.

The government of the United States has broad, undoubted power over the subject of immigration and the status of aliens. Immigration policy can affect trade, investment, tourism and diplomatic relations for the entire nation.

One Justice agreed with the majority that Arizona's alien-registration requirement was void, but voted to uphold SB 1070 provisions making it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek work and authorizing warrantless arrests of certain aliens. Two other Justices each filed separate dissents arguing that SB 1070 should be upheld in its entirety.

The majority deprives States of what most would consider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign's territory people who have no right to be there.

One Justice acknowledged that the problems posed to the State by illegal immigration must not be underestimated, and cited figures indicating that unauthorized aliens are responsible for a disproportionate share of serious crime—a reported 21.8% of felonies in Maricopa County, which includes Phoenix, where they constitute 8.9% of the population.

Nonetheless, since 1940, the federal government has occupied the field of alien registration, leaving no room for Arizona to pile on penalties. SB 1070 went further than federal law, forbidding probation and even the possibility of a pardon for such an offense.

Another SB 1070 section made it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek work, in contrast to federal law, which punishes employers for hiring unauthorized immigrants but not the workers themselves, unless they used fraudulent documents or committed perjury to obtain work. The state law would interfere with the careful balance struck by Congress over the labor market.

One Justice concluded with a paean to America's history as a nation of immigrants, observing that last month a dozen immigrants stood before the tattered flag that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the National Anthem and took the oath of citizenship.

Opponents of the law said they would redouble efforts to challenge the remaining part of the law. This proves Arizona cannot criminalize immigrants.

A Republican governor who signed the law in 2010, called the ruling a victory and said she had once again ordered law-enforcement officials to undergo training on how to enforce the law without engaging in racial profiling.

As a result of Monday's ruling, state officials can't jail an illegal immigrant under state law solely for failing to carry papers. In the absence of another crime, the most they can do is refer the case to federal authorities for possible deportation proceedings.

Federal policy will continue to put priority on deporting those who commit crimes, have repeatedly violated immigration laws or have crossed the border recently. That means otherwise law-abiding immigrants aren't likely to face deportation, even if Arizona police, using the surviving part of the law, discover the immigrants lack documents allowing them to be in the U.S.

Arizona's illegal-immigration measure, officially titled the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act, reflected outrage among tea-party conservatives over what they considered lax enforcement by federal immigration authorities. Yet Arizona voters sent a mixed message on the measure when its author, state Senate President Russell Pearce, lost his seat in a November recall election to another Republican.

Similar measures have been introduced in other states, including Alabama, which recently drew unwelcome attention when executives from German and Japanese car makers that the state had lured there were arrested for failing to produce immigration papers.

Reaction was mixed in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina, three states that passed legislation in 2011 aimed at restricting illegal immigration. Those laws had a provision similar to the one in Arizona that was upheld. Alabama House Speaker Mike Hubbard, a Republican, called the ruling a victory, while opponents in the three states said the Supreme court had upheld their view that immigration was essentially a federal matter.

Each state law has other provisions, including some that weren't in the Arizona statute, and it wasn't clear how federal courts would apply the Supreme Court's reasoning in those cases. Georgia made it a state crime for people to knowingly house or transport an illegal immigrant, a provision that was blocked by a lower court and is now under appeal.