This was a sharply divided three person court. Footnote 6 of the opinion highlights that the panel was not united, to put it mildly:
"6 We have carefully considered the dissent and we respond to its arguments as appropriate. We do not, however, respond where the dissent has resorted to fairy tale quotes and other superfluous and distracting rhetoric. These devices make light of the seriousness of the issues before this court and distract from the legitimate judicial disagreements that separate the majority and dissent."The key finding of the Court was that S.B. 1070 interfered in federal control of immigration:
By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement, turning Arizona officers into state-directed DHS agents. As a result, Section 2(B) interferes with Congress’ delegation of discretion to the Executive branch in enforcing the INA. (p. 4824)In a passage that will give rise to much attention, the Court cited protests by foreign countries over the law as evidence that the law had more than in incidental interference in federal government immigration policies:
"Thus far, the following foreign leaders and bodies have publicly criticized Arizona’s law: The Presidents of Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, El Salvador, and Guatemala; the governments of Brazil, Colombia, Honduras, and Nicaragua; the national assemblies in Ecuador and Nicaragua and the Central American Parliament; six human rights experts at the United Nations; the Secretary General and many permanent representatives of the Organization of American States; the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; and the Union of South American Nations.In Footnote 14, the Court addressed the dissent's objection to reliance on foreign protests:
In addition to criticizing S.B. 1070, Mexico has taken affirmative steps to protest it. As a direct result of the Arizona law, at least five of the six Mexican Governors invited to travel to Phoenix to participate in the September 8-10, 2010 U.S.-Mexico Border Governors’ Conference declined the invitation. The Mexican Senate has postponed review of a U.S.-Mexico agreement on emergency management cooperation to deal with natural disasters." (pp. 4826-4827)
14 Thus, Arizona’s extensive criticism of this court for permitting foreign governments to file Amicus Curiae briefs is misguided. These briefs are relevant to our decision-making in this case insofar as they demonstrate the factual effects of Arizona’s law on U.S. foreign affairs, an issue that the Supreme Court has directed us to consider in preemption cases.Interestingly, and perhaps important as to whether the U.S. Supreme Court takes the case, is that the 9th Circuit majority recognized that its decision on one issue, whether police could arrest someone on a reasonable suspicion that the person was removable from the country, conflicted with the 10th Circuit: "We recognize that our view conflicts with the Tenth Circuit’s." (p. 4845) Since a conflict among the Circuits is one of the reasons the Supreme Court grants certiorari, this increases the likelihood the Supreme Court will take the case.
Similarly, the dissent asserts that our reasoning grants a “heckler’s veto” to foreign ministries and argues that a “foreign nation may not cause a state law to be preempted simply by complaining about the law’s effects on foreign relations generally.” Dissent at 4880. As a preliminary matter. We disagree with the dissent’s characterization of our opinion, as we do not conclude that a foreign government’s complaints alone require preemption.
Our consideration of this evidence is consistent with the Supreme Court’s concern that we not disregard or minimize the importance of such evidence.
It is worth noting that while much of the fury directed at the law and its supporters was based on allegations of civil rights violations, the 9th Circuit did not base its decision on such matters, but limited itself to a preemption/interference analysis.
U.S. v. Arizona - 9th Cir Opinion 4-11-2011
--------------------------------------------
Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Like most of the 9th Circus Court's important opinions, this one too will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
ReplyDeleteI know this has all been hashed out before, but this is a really dumb position for the court to take. Any state or local law enforcement activity of anything that is primarily the domain of the federal government (as in anything based on commerce clause jurisprudence) should be equally unconstitutional. Does the 9th object to local law enforcement acting as mini-DEAs when they arrest someone for controlled narcotics?
ReplyDeleteA preconceived ruling based on desired political outcome.
"By imposing mandatory obligations on state and local officers, Arizona interferes with the federal government’s authority to implement its priorities and strategies in law enforcement"
ReplyDeleteWhere does this knee-jerk assumption that federal law enforcement 'priorities and strategies' supersede state law? "Federal government's authority" my ass.
"Thus far, the following foreign leaders and bodies have publicly criticized Arizona’s law: The Presidents of Mexico,..."
ReplyDeleteDid they forget about President Obama? He is a foreign president, isn't he?
This ruling is the equivalent of a house burning down. You can see what is going on but told not to do anything because it is someone else's responsibility to take care of. Except, that someone else never arrives and all is lost.
ReplyDeleteI would question what recourse the 9th believes the State(s) to have when the Federal fails to enforce its own laws.
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, when were the governments of other countries empowered by the Constitution to decide the laws of this country?
ReplyDelete"We do not, however, respond where the dissent has resorted to fairy tale quotes and other superfluous and distracting rhetoric. These devices make light of the seriousness of the issues before this court and distract from the legitimate judicial disagreements...."
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly are these "fairy tale quotes?" I will read the response, but just wondering if there are any specific that were outrageously outrageous enough to prompt this strong response.
I just tried to read your Scribd link; only the first few pages are in the file (up to p. 4 of the opinion, footnote 1).
ReplyDeleteNot sure what's up...... Thanks!
@DinoRM - not sure, it works for me.
ReplyDeleteRing, ring:
ReplyDeleteFBI: "Good morning. FBI tip line. How may I help you"
Officer: "This is Officer Smith of the Tempe, Arizona PD"
FBI: "Yes, Officer Smith, how can we help you today?"
Officer: "I just wanted to check with the FBI. Isn't bank robbery a federal crime?"
FBI: "Why yes, Officer Smith, it is."
FBI: "Well then, I think I should tell you that the First National Bank of Tempe has just been robbed and you need to get your guys down here."
FBI: "Understood, Officer Smith. Can you tell me how your department is persuing the robbers and what information you currently have on the investigation of the robbery?"
Officer: "Oh, we're not persuing the robbers and there is no current investigation being done in our department. The 9th Circus Court of Appeals has ruled that local Arizona LEs are not to interfer in crimes that are strictly the purview of the federal government. I just wanted to let you know the bank was robbed but our department will not be assisting you in any way. We do not intend to "interfer with the federal government's authority to implement its priorities and stratagies in law enforcement." We will simply give you information via your tip line. Good luck to your agents, and have a nice day. Goodby."
If the 9th Circus rules, and it is upheld, that local and state LE cannot interfer with the enfocement of crimes that are considered to be the strick purview of the federal government, how can they force Arizona, or any other state for that matter, to enforce other crimes outside the jurisdiction of the state?