Why sb 1070 is unconstitutional

Provision 1 was upheld Provision 2 was struck down Provision 3 was struck down Provision 4 was struck down. Legal challenges to SB and the five copycats continue on other constitution grounds.

In Alabama, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals kept provision 1 in effect, blocked provision 3, and struck down provision 4. Provision 2 is not applicable. In Georgia, the 11 th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld provision 1 and upheld provision 2.

Provision 3 and Provision 4 are not applicable. In Indiana, the Indiana federal district court blocked provision 2. Provision 1, Provision 3 and Provision 4 are not applicable. Provision 2 and Provision 4 are not applicable. It passed the Arizona House, , and the state Senate, The law contained four major elements aimed at lessening the number of immigrants in the state illegally through attrition.

It compelled police to ask for papers and allowed officers to arrest a person without a warrant if the officer believed the person has committed an offense that makes them deportable. The law also made it a crime to fail to carry registration papers and for people in the country illegally to solicit work.

Multiple parties attempted to block its implementation, including the U. Department of Justice. Just a day before the law was to take effect, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction that held back its most aggressive elements while lawsuits against the bill played out.

The U. In , the Supreme Court, in a ruling, blocked three provisions of the Arizona law, but upheld the provision that required officers to demand papers from individuals, a situation that even the conservative dissenters among the justices acknowledged could lead to improper detentions and arrests. How will they train themselves going forward? SB was born amid a different conversation on immigration, one that centered on strident deportation policies and massive workplace raids.

After former Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano vetoed several versions of state bills that targeted immigrants, supporters of SB found a more accepting environment with Brewer.

Today, the rise of Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump and his pledge to build a wall on the U. Gallup polling has consistently shown increasing numbers of people in the U. What I will say about the four disputed provisions is the following:.

As Judge Bea points out, it cannot be the case that the legality of a state law turns on a given set of enforcement policies or practices, as opposed to the text of the allegedly preemptive federal law itself. Second , Section 3 does not to me seem to add any additional registration requirements that would violate the applicable conflict preemption standards see Hines v. Davidowitz , but rather mirrors federal law. Whiting decision might at first glance belie this view, but the regulations at issue there fit neatly within an explicit exemption in federal law.

With preemption analysis perhaps more than anything else on the Supreme Court docket, text matters. For example, Rhode Island law enforcement officers have long been checking immigration status during traffic stops as a matter of policy. As I said above, S. But noble — or at least understandable — goals are neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for good public policy.

Research on these issues shows otherwise. As my colleague Dan Griswold found in a report, even though the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the United States has risen strongly since the early s, the size of the economic underclass has not.

From through , the number of people living below the poverty line declined by 2 million, from