U.S. Dept. of Justice filing suit against Arizona immigration law

Photobucket
Image via Guanabee.
Finally. AP reports:

The U.S. Justice Department is filing a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Arizona’s new law targeting illegal immigrants, setting the stage for a clash between the federal government and state over the nation’s toughest immigration crackdown.
The planned lawsuit was confirmed to The Associated Press by a Justice Department official with knowledge of the plans. The official didn’t want to be identified before a public announcement planned for later Tuesday.
The lawsuit will argue that Arizona’s new measure requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws, like traffic stops, usurps federal authority.

We’ll keep you posted on the announcement, which is supposed to be made by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Sec. Janet Napolitano later today.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

5 Comments

  1. Comrade Kevin
    Posted July 6, 2010 at 2:43 pm | Permalink

    One wonders how long it will take to get to the Supreme Court. Sometimes these things take years.

  2. goldtracker.wordpress.com
    Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:19 pm | Permalink

    This is going to be very interesting to watch unfold over the coming months. When I saw the headline I couldn’t help but think back to the pre-Civil War era.

  3. Uppity Broad
    Posted July 6, 2010 at 6:43 pm | Permalink

    Do you suppose our “illustrious” Attorney General will have time to actually read the law before he continues carping about it? He admitted on national television that he had not even read the law. Great choice, Obama.

  4. Kessei
    Posted July 7, 2010 at 8:34 am | Permalink

    The crowing about how he hadn’t read the law is political grandstanding.
    Arizona’s SB 1070 is short, but most laws aren’t. They’re usually convoluted, with a lot of “Section 212(a)(6) is hereby amended by striking ‘by any estabilshed method’ and replacing it with ‘by such methods as may be designated by the district director’.” That little change could be hugely monumental, but unless you’re familiar with this hypothetical 212(a)(6) and know its applicable regulations and know how it has been interpreted by the courts and put into practice by the various agencies, you have NO idea what that law just changed.
    Consequently, it’s much more effective to have an attorney who is specialized in legislative analysis and the particular area of law read it and then brief you.
    And, as with many other laws, the devil is in the details in SB 1070. The problems with this law are not necessarily apparent on first reading, which is why many people who have read it who are not familiar with immigration law or immigration enforcement are confused about where the problem lies.
    Holder is not an immigration attorney. Other than having a talking point that he’d “read the law”, what would be the benefit of reading the law himself, when he has several portions of the DOJ filled with attorney advisors and general counsels who make their LIVING reading and interpreting immigration law and regulations?

  5. WIDave
    Posted July 7, 2010 at 10:30 pm | Permalink

    From a Constitution standpoint, the DOJ doesn’t have a leg to stand on with this case. SB 1070 mimics federal law. No usurping going on there. In fact, federal law is more draconian than SB 1070.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

171 queries. 0.601 seconds