# Ninth Circuit Upholds Injunction Against AZ Immigration Law **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 11, 2011, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982 "2011-04-11T18:36:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/61 "2012-06-25T17:45:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > In no event can the police initially stop or otherwise detain someone solely for suspicion of an immigration violation. That’s the job of the INS. Yes, but to be crystal clear: the Arizona law, even the parts struck down, did not purport to authorize that anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/62 "2012-06-25T17:50:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Yes, but to be crystal clear: the Arizona law, even the parts struck down, did not purport to authorize that anyway. Huh? > [@](#): > > Section 6 authorizes officers to arrest without a warrant a person “the officer has probable cause to believe . . . has committed any public offense that makes the person removable from the United States.” §13–3883(A)(5). ---
**Author:** ![JKellyMap](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jkellymap/32/15880_2.png) [@JKellyMap](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JKellyMap)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/63 "2012-06-25T17:50:51Z")
Thank you, Richard Parker (and Bricker, and others), for that clear summary. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/64 "2012-06-25T18:14:31Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > Huh? Hmmm. I should have been a bit more circumspect. The law as originally drafted allowed officers to stop and investigate on their suspicion of immigration violations alone. As the bill was debated, that section was changed to only allow an investigation after the subject was stopped for some other reason. So when you said, “In no event can the police initially stop or otherwise detain someone solely for suspicion of an immigration violation,” it was that change I thought you were missing. The section you quote authorizes an arrest for being in violation of immigration law, but read with the rest of the law, doesn’t allow an investigative stop for the purpose of discerning someone’s immigration status. So basically the effect would have been that if someone is stopped for something else, and the officer develops probable cause to believe that that person’s immigration status makes teh person removeable, THEN the officer could have arrested the person. So - right you are. I spoke hastily and unclearly. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/65 "2012-06-25T18:22:15Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Moe Alito, Larry Thomas, and Curly Scalia all wrote opinions that they would have upheld all 4 provisions. Wow, you don’t have much substance to add, do you? ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/66 "2012-06-25T18:31:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Hmmm. I should have been a bit more circumspect. The law as originally drafted allowed officers to stop and investigate on their suspicion of immigration violations alone. As the bill was debated, that section was changed to only allow an investigation after the subject was stopped for some other reason. So when you said, “In no event can the police initially stop or otherwise detain someone solely for suspicion of an immigration violation,” it was that change I thought you were missing. > > The section you quote authorizes an arrest for being in violation of immigration law, but read with the rest of the law, doesn’t allow an investigative stop for the purpose of discerning someone’s immigration status. So basically the effect would have been that if someone is stopped for something else, and the officer develops probable cause to believe that that person’s immigration status makes teh person removeable, THEN the officer could have arrested the person. > > So - right you are. I spoke hastily and unclearly. IIRC, the interpretation of Section 6 is a matter of some dispute, and has been at all levels of the litigation. I think the State’s position is what you’ve outlined above. I think the challenger’s position is that Section 6 would have authorized investigative stops purely on suspicion of removeability. It isn’t 100% clear to me how the Supreme Court interpreted it, but I think they interpreted it like the challengers. They write, for example, that “If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent.” That to me suggests they thought Section 6 allowed such a stop. ---
**Author:** ![dngnb8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/977dab/32.png) [@dngnb8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dngnb8)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/67 "2012-06-25T19:08:04Z")
Ive always felt that Brewer never intended for anything to pass. She is happy that they got the one provision through. Her goal was to make this an election issue and to force the Feds to do something about immigration. JMHO ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/68 "2012-06-25T19:21:52Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > IIRC, the interpretation of Section 6 is a matter of some dispute, and has been at all levels of the litigation. I think the State’s position is what you’ve outlined above. I think the challenger’s position is that Section 6 would have authorized investigative stops purely on suspicion of removeability. It isn’t 100% clear to me how the Supreme Court interpreted it, but I think they interpreted it like the challengers. They write, for example, that “If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent.” That to me suggests they thought Section 6 allowed such a stop. Well, since I’d oppose using it in that way, I’m just as happy they smacked it. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/69 "2012-06-25T20:11:51Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Moe Alito, Larry Thomas, and Curly Scalia all wrote opinions that they would have upheld all 4 provisions. Not true. Alito voted to strike down the requirement that immigrants carry their papers with them at all time. Scalia and Thomas would have upheld all 4 provisions. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/70 "2012-06-25T20:15:49Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Not true. Alito voted to strike down the requirement that immigrants carry their papers with them at all time. Scalia and Thomas would have upheld all 4 provisions. I was just quoting an early Huffington Post report (obviously they didn’t make a Stooge reference). ---
**Author:** ![Kevbo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e47774/32.png) [@Kevbo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kevbo)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/71 "2012-06-25T20:50:11Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > … They write, for example, that “If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent.” That to me suggests they thought Section 6 allowed such a stop. Even if SB1070 as written does/did not allow a stop based on nothing more than a suspicion of illegible immigration status, this is meaningless in practice because it is a trivial exercise for a police officer to invent a pretext for a stop. If you are black, or have often driven at the time the bars close you likely have first hand experience with this. Best one I ever got was “You almost hit the median back there”. Hmmm, sounds like you almost have a reason for stopping me then. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/72 "2012-06-25T20:58:31Z")
I’m not sure I would go so far as to call it meaningless, but I agree that a pretext can be and is often invented. And it’s worth noting that there is no such thing as the exclusionary rule in the immigration context. So if you’re falsely arrested just for the purpose of checking your immigration status, whatever they learn cannot be suppressed in your removal hearing even if the arrest was a complete fabrication. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [June 25, 2012, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/73 "2012-06-25T22:06:20Z")
> [@Kevbo](#): > > Even if SB1070 as written does/did not allow a stop based on nothing more than a suspicion of illegible immigration status, this is meaningless in practice because it is a trivial exercise for a police officer to invent a pretext for a stop. > > If you are black, or have often driven at the time the bars close you likely have first hand experience with this. Best one I ever got was “You almost hit the median back there”. Hmmm, sounds like you almost have a reason for stopping me then. How’s this different than any other law? If they police are corrupt and want to screw with you, they can use any number of excuses to stop you, with or without this law. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/74 "2012-06-26T13:59:49Z")
Any thoughts on Scalia’s dissent, which [The Ticket](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.html) said directly criticizes parts of President Obama’s immigration policy, including his recent announcement to not enforce deportation of younger undocumented immigrants? > [@](#): > > “Must Arizona’s ability to protect its borders yield to the reality that Congress has provided inadequate funding for federal enforcement—or, even worse, to the executive’s unwise targeting of that funding?” Scalia asked. Later, he added: “What I do fear—and what Arizona and the States that support it fear—is that ‘federal policies’ of nonenforcement will leave the States helpless before those evil effects of illegal immigration.” > > The federal government “does not want to enforce the immigration laws as written, and leaves the States’ borders unprotected against immigrants whom those laws would exclude,” Scalia alleged. IMO this seems to go far beyond the “balls and strikes” of this particular law, but perhaps I’m misreading it. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/75 "2012-06-26T14:01:28Z")
His comments are wildly inappropriate and quite disappointing. It’s the kind of thing you expect from an overly partisan district court judge, new to the bench. You don’t expect it from a Supreme Court Justice. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/76 "2012-06-26T14:04:09Z")
> [@CJJ](#): > > Any thoughts on Scalia’s dissent, which [The Ticket](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/arizona-dissent-scalia-blasts-obama-deportation-stay-immigration-185431255.html) said directly criticizes parts of President Obama’s immigration policy, including his recent announcement to not enforce deportation of younger undocumented immigrants? > > IMO this seems to go far beyond the “balls and strikes” of this particular law, but perhaps I’m misreading it. No, it goes beyond balls and strikes. But it’s dicta – that is, it’s based on parts of the case not up for review and even if his had been the majority opinion, that commentary does not create or change the effect of the decision. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/77 "2012-06-26T14:12:03Z")
Somebody want to tell Jan Brewer that she lost 3/4 of the decision? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/78 "2012-06-26T14:14:48Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > His comments are wildly inappropriate and quite disappointing. It’s the kind of thing you expect from an overly partisan district court judge, new to the bench. You don’t expect it from a Supreme Court Justice. You don’t expect a sitting President to repeatedly attack the USSC either. It’s one thing to object to a court ruling based on the facts of the case but it’s something else to challenge the courts right to make decisions. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/79 "2012-06-26T14:16:43Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > His comments are wildly inappropriate and quite disappointing. It’s the kind of thing you expect from an overly partisan district court judge, new to the bench. You don’t expect it from a Supreme Court Justice. I don’t think Scalia’s comments are inappropriate at all. It boils down to a simple question of what can states do when the Federal government refuses to enforce a law and the result negatively impacts that state? Do they have to bend over and take it or is there a shred of state sovereignty left? Like I pointed out when the law was first discussed here, the Constitution does not offer illegal immigrants the right to travel (a privledge and immunity) and the Federal government would be hard pressed to tell a state that they cannot ban illegal immigrants that shouldn’t even be here that the state can’t stop them from crossing the border. But we now have a situation where the President is being overtly negligent in his duties to carry out his Constitutional obligation to enforce the law. I think that Scalia’s comment go directly to the impact that has on a (theoretical) Federalist system. In other words when the Feds use the Supremacy Clause to ensure a law is NOT enforced, that is dangerous ground. That being said, there is probably a more diplomatic way to say it than Scalia did. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982/80 "2012-06-26T14:18:54Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > You don’t expect a sitting President to repeatedly attack the USSC either. It’s one thing to object to a court ruling based on the facts of the case but it’s something else to challenge the courts right to make decisions. The worst kind of “the other side did it” argument is one where the other side didn’t actually do it. That’s what gets us into these civility death spirals. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ninth-circuit-upholds-injunction-against-az-immigration-law/577982.md?page=5)