The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down three provisions of Arizona’s law against illegal immigration while letting one key part of the law stand for now. More details on the ruling are after the jump, along with reaction from Senator Chuck Grassley and Representative Steve King (IA-05). I also sought comment on whether Governor Terry Branstad would seek to enact a “show your papers” statute in Iowa.
On a related note, I included last week’s comments by Representative Bruce Braley (IA-01) and his GOP challenger Ben Lange on the Obama administration’s new deportation policy.
The Supreme Court’s 5-3 ruling is here (pdf). Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the decision, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito dissented from parts of the ruling. Justice Elena Kagan recused herself because as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, she was involved in forming administration strategy opposing the Arizona law.
Kevin Russell posted a good summary of the ruling at the SCOTUS blog. (UPDATE: SCOTUS blog posted several solid analytical pieces on the ruling.) For more background on the contested portions of the Arizona law, click here or here. The five justices invalidated portions of the Arizona law that made it a state crime to be in the country illegally, made it a state crime for undocumented immigrants to seek or hold employment in the U.S., and authorize state law enforcement to arrest without a warrant of anyone the officer believes could have committed a deportable offense. Excerpt:
The National Government has significant power to regulate immigration. Arizona may have understandable frustrations with the problems caused by illegal immigration while that process continues, but the State may not pursue policies that undermine federal law.
The court let the infamous “show your papers” provision go into effect, without affirming that it is constitutional for a state to require the police to check detained persons’ immigration status.
The Court held that the lower courts were wrong to prevent this provision from going into effect while its lawfulness is being litigated. It was not sufficiently clear that the provision would be held preempted, the Court held. The Court took pains to point out that the law, on its face, prohibits stops based on race or national origin and provides that the stops must be conducted consistent with federal immigration and civil rights laws. However, it held open that the provision could eventually be invalidated after trial.
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito disagreed with the ruling, portraying Arizona’s law as an acceptable exercise in state sovereignty. Incidentally, Scalia’s dissent (which begins on page 26 of this pdf file) contained some unusual, even bizarre, legal reasoning.
Arizona Governor Jan Brewer declared victory, because the court ruling allows Arizona law enforcement to check the papers of detained individuals. But the U.S. Department of Homeland Security on Monday “rescinded agreements that allowed seven Arizona law enforcement agencies to check the immigration status of suspected illegal immigrants, further hindering the state’s ability to enforce SB1070 following the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling.” The U.S. Department of Justice set up a hotline for people to report civil rights concerns regarding Arizona’s enforcement of this law.
Most Iowans in Congress did not publicly comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling, but Steve King expressed disappointment with the decision. Illegal immigration is one of King’s signature issues. He is vice-chair of the House Judiciary Committee’s subcommittee on immigration issues and would be chairing that committee if he weren’t so outspoken about illegal immigrants. King attended the Supreme Court’s oral arguments on Arizona’s law and held a joint press conference with the lead author and sponsor of the Arizona law. King has also introduced federal legislation designed to reduce the flow of undocumented immigrants and a law that would end “birthright citizenship” for undocumented immigrants’ children born in the U.S. His office released this statement on June 25 (emphasis in original):
King: SB1070 Decision Both Win and Loss for Immigration Enforcement
Washington, DC- Congressman Steve King released the following statement today in reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision to strike three of the four key provisions of the Arizona Immigration law, SB1070.
“Today the Supreme Court preserved the most important component of the Arizona law- the provision that allows law enforcement, when reasonable suspicion standards are met, to request that an individual produce identification and verify their immigration status,” said King. “This is a significant win when it comes to efforts to increase enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws. However, I have serious concerns about the other side of today’s ruling, which struck down three other provisions of SB 1070. The three provisions were written to mirror and support federal immigration law.
Today’s decision makes it harder for states to protect their citizens from the crime wave of illegal immigration driven by drug smuggling. I will now look for a statutory fix that will empower the states. The President refuses to enforce immigration law himself, and he doesn’t want anyone else to enforce the laws either.”
Senator Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released a more neutral statement on June 25:
“Today’s Court decision emphasizes the importance of the federal government enforcing immigration laws and Congress acting to strengthen those laws where necessary. The state of Arizona was forced to take action because the federal government shirked its responsibilities. The state was necessarily stepping up to help the federal government and safeguard its own citizens and communities.”
I wondered whether Governor Terry Branstad would respond to Monday’s Supreme Court ruling. During the 2010 Republican gubernatorial primary, he stopped short of backing an Arizona-style immigration law for Iowa, but in July 2010 he suggested that he would be open to a “show your papers” law:
“When people are stopped for a criminal violation or traffic violation, if they cannot show they are here legally, they ought to be detained and turned over to the federal government for deportation,” Branstad said.
Branstad cautioned, however, that he didn’t want Iowa taxpayers to be left paying the bill for the process.
“I think the challenge is getting the federal government to fulfill their end of the deal,” Branstad told a group of about 25 people at the Lied Public Library. “I don’t want the local property taxpayers to have to pay for them to be in a county jail for month after month after month. They need to step up and do their part of it.”
I didn’t see any public comment from the governor’s office on the Supreme Court ruling, so I asked whether Branstad would support a “show your papers” law for Iowa. The governor’s communications director Tim Albrecht responded that Branstad “believes we should encourage legal immigration while enforcing the immigration laws currently on the books” and “does not believe Iowa needs to do anything differently based on this ruling.”
Some Iowa House Republicans introduced bills seeking to crack down on illegal immigration during the 2012 legislative session, but neither of those measures even made it out of committee.
In other immigration-related news, last week Representative Bruce Braley and his Republican opponent Ben Lange weighed in on the Obama administration’s policy halting deportations of some undocumented immigrants who were brought to this country as children. (Bleeding Heartland covered the initial Iowa reaction to that policy here.) Radio Iowa’s Dar Danielson quoted Braley telling Iowa news reporters that he supports president Obama’s action.
Braley says we need to have “an open and honest debate about the realities of the immigration policies that we have,” and that’s why he’s supported things like the “Dream Act” in the past.
“Young people who’re brought to this country through no fault of their own, who go to school here, who work here and are part of our existing economy, should be given the opportunity to do what we do every year in this country. Which is, give people an opportunity to demonstrate that they are going to do the right thing, be productive members of society, and give them the chance to pursue the American dream,” Braley says.
Braley says the harsh reality is that many Iowans, including dairy farmers, seed-corn companies and people doing work in high-tech areas rely heavily on immigrant labor of some type.
Braley added, “if the leadership in [C]ongress is unwilling to have that conversation [about comprehensive immigration reform], then the president has no choice but to take some incremental actions to deal with these practical considerations.”
Lange’s campaign sent out this press release on June 22:
INDEPENDENCE, IA – Congressional candidate Ben Lange (IA-01) today issued the following statement in response to Congressman Bruce Braley’s (D-IA) support of President Obama’s unilateral decision not to deport certain illegal immigrants as required by duly enacted laws passed by the people’s representatives in Congress:
Our immigration system needs to be reformed, but not at the expense of transforming the presidency into a monarchy. Under our Constitution, the legislative and executive powers are separated – Congress makes laws and the president enforces them.
What President Obama did last week was crown himself king and unilaterally declare which laws he will and will not enforce. In this pronouncement, President Obama declared authority to determine what the law shall be, a function not of the executive branch but of the legislative.
This issue isn’t about immigration, it is about the Constitution. Whether the underlying policy being pursued is wise or unwise, this is a profound and dangerous precedent that threatens to fundamentally alter the relationship between the Congress and the President under our constitutional system.
What recourse will Iowans have if a future president wakes up and decides that, in order to shore-up popular support with rising populations on the coasts, he or she will intentionally not enforce a law that protects Iowa’s interests?
Our representatives will be without recourse because during a presidential election cycle in 2012, Democrats in Congress were willing to sacrifice a core constitutional principle for short-term political gain, and Republicans in Congress appeared willing to tolerate it because of short-term political fallout.
This is what is wrong with Bruce Braley and politicians in Washington. They are gutless and more concerned about gaining partisan advantage than doing what is right for Iowans and the American people.
We need to reform our immigration system, but we need to accomplish it through the proper legislative process without spitting on the Constitution.
Any relevant comments are welcome in this thread.