US immigration
US justices block key parts of Arizona law but uphold immigration checks
Obama wins partial victory on SB1070 law, but supreme court leaves in place controversial 'show-me-your-papers' measure
Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Mon 25 Jun 2012 20.57 EDT
Arizona's governor, Jan Brewer, gives her response to the supreme court ruling Reuters and YouTube/cubmerdu
Barack Obama won a partial victory on Monday when the supreme court struck down key parts of Arizona's draconian anti-immigration laws, though it left in place the hotly contested part of the legislation that Latinos claim will result in racial profiling.
By a majority of five to three, the court blocked implementation of several components of the SB1070 law on the grounds that the federal government had broad powers for setting immigration policy, not individual states.
Obama had wanted the whole Arizona immigration law declared unconstitutional. Instead, all eight justices voted unanimously to allow the most controversial measure to go ahead, the so-called "show me your papers" section. This will allow police to check the immigration status of people they stop or arrest if it is suspected that the individuals are in the US illegally.
The court did not come out in favour of the police power, simply saying it was withholding its view until lower courts discussed it. It said that "without the benefit of a definitive interpretation from the state courts, it would be inappropriate to assume [the police power] will be construed in a way that conflicts with federal law".
Obama has been repeatedly outspoken in his criticism of Arizona for introducing tough anti-immigration laws aimed at illegal immigrants crossing the Mexican border, and the department of justice had sued to block the legislation in Arizona and in other states introducing similar measures.
In a statement, the president said: "I am pleased that the supreme court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it's part of the problem.
"At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status."
He added: "No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the court's decision recognises."
Arizonans working in Latino communities were divided over whether to rejoice over the provisions of the law that had been struck down, or lament the court's approval of its most contentious aspect. "We are still trying to come to agreement over whether this is a victory or the opposite," said Daniel Rodriguez, president of the Phoenix-based pro-immigration group Somos America.
A former Arizona state senator, Alfredo Gutierrez, predicted that once the injunction had been lifted – which could take weeks or months – racial profiling against Latinos would spread across the state: "Unquestionably that will happen, and to a certain extent we welcome that as it will bring the law back into court and allow another challenge to it."
But Arizona's Republican governor, Jan Brewer, who introduced the law on the grounds that the state was having to act because of the failure of the federal government to act, said the ruling was a victory because it left in place the measure at the "heart" of the legislation.
The decision to strike down most of the law leaves Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in an awkward position, not least because he has publicly suggested that Arizona's approach was a model for the nation.
Romney, who is visiting Arizona on Monday and will almost certainly be asked about the ruling, said: "I believe that each state has the duty – and the right – to secure our borders and preserve the rule of law, particularly when the federal government has failed to meet its responsibilities. As a candidate Obama, he promised to present an immigration plan during his first year in office. But four years later, we are still waiting.
"I would have preferred to see the supreme court give more latitude to the states, not less. And there are states now under this decision that have less authority, less latitude to enforce immigration laws."
Members of the media gather in front of the US supreme court in Washington ahead of a set of anticipated rulings. Photograph: Yuri Gripas/Reuters
Over the past two weeks Romney has found himself outmanoeuvred by Obama on the immigration issue. Obama has a built-in advantage of a two-to-one ratio of support among Latinos and polls suggest he has widened the gap since his announcement a week ago on Friday to lift the threat of deportation for an estimated 800,000 undocumented young people.
Romney has softened his language from the Republican primary campaign where he adopted a tough anti-illegal immigrant stance, talking about self-deportation and pledging to veto any Dream Act, the proposed legislation to grant the children of illegal immigrants a route to citizenship.
However Romney's vague response to both Obama's immigration move and the supreme court ruling on Monday suggest he has given up trying to claw back a substantial part of the Latino vote, a potentially risky decision to alienate part of the electorate in what is shaping up to be a tight election. Part of the calculation may be that while Latinos make up the fastest-growing part of the population, the number who vote has in the past tended to be much smaller.
In its ruling on Monday, the supreme court struck down parts of the Arizona law that made it a crime for illegal immigrants to seek jobs or fail to register their presence or for the police to make arrests of suspected illegal immigrants without a warrant.
In the majority ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy – who tends to hold the balance in the court – wrote: "The national government has significant power to regulate immigration. With power comes responsibility, and the sound exercise of national power over immigration depends on the nation's meeting its responsibility to base its laws on a political will informed by searching, thoughtful, rational civic discourse.
"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," Justice Kennedy added.
'Jaywalking in Tucson'
He explained why section 2B was being allowed to stand but could face future challenge.
"To take one example, a person might be stopped for jaywalking in Tucson and be unable to produce identification," he wrote. "The first sentence of 2B instructs officers to make a 'reasonable' attempt to verify his immigration status with ICE if there is reasonable suspicion that his presence in the United States is unlawful. The state courts may conclude that, unless the person continues to be suspected of some crime for which he may be detained by state officers, it would not be reasonable to prolong the stop for the immigration inquiry."
Tom Horne, the Arizona attorney-general, claimed the parts that were struck down were "minor". The Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio, who established a reputation for his tough approach to illegal immigrants, told a local television show that there was no racial profiling and that Arizona police officers have received extensive training to ensure that individual rights were respected.
One of America's leading civil rights organisations, the Centre for Constitutional Rights, welcomed part of the ruling but expressed disappointment over the contentious police power.
Vince Warren, executive director of the centre, said: "We are extremely disappointed that the court has endorsed Arizona's damaging policy of requiring police to stop and interrogate anyone they suspect to be present unlawfully."
He added: "The supreme court has legitimised reactionary state law ordinances that encourage widespread racial profiling, multiply wrongful arrests, and spread fear in communities of colour. Today's decision allows individual states to create a patchwork system of immigration enforcement."
Janet Murguia, president of the National Council of La Raza, one of the main Latino groups, said that striking down many of the law's provisions was a victory but leaving the police power on showing documents was a threat to Latino civil rights.
"For us, it still puts a bulleye on the backs of many Latinos in this country," she told CNN.
The two US senators from Arizona, John McCain and Jon Kyl, issued a joint statement saying they wanted to review the ruling. McCain had been a prominent supporter of working with the Democrats on relatively liberal reforms that would open the way for illegal immigrants to become citizens.
In a carefully worded statement that leaves them sitting on the fence, they said: "We will continue our efforts on behalf of the citizens of Arizona to secure our southern border. We believe Arizonans are better served when state and federal officials work as partners to protect our citizens rather than as litigants in a courtroom."