Alabama officials studying U.S. Supreme Court ruling on immigration law, opponents say state law won't stand (Updated)

Brian Lawson | By Brian Lawson |
Email the author | Follow on Twitter
on June 25, 2012 at 9:20 AM, updated June 25, 2012 at 7:01 PM

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Both sides of Alabama's immigration debate found bright spots in today's Supreme Court ruling, which struck down most of Arizona's law.

Alabama Gov. Robert Bentley and Attorney General Luther Strange said they are currently reviewing the decision, trying to understand what it means for the state's far-reaching law.

"Today the Supreme Court acknowledged that state law enforcement can play an important role in assisting the federal government in fulfilling its responsibility to enforce the immigration laws of this country," Strange said. "The Court, in this landmark decision, provides guidance on the validity of Arizona's immigration law which will impact Alabama's immigration law along with those of several other states."

But Mary Bauer, legal director of the Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center, which is part of the lawsuit against Alabama, said the decision emphasized the role of the federal government over the states on immigration policy. She said the decision to leave the "papers please" provision intact is a disappointment  but the overall decision is a blow to immigration laws like Alabama's.

"I think a lot of the provisions in the Alabama law are now doomed," Bauer said.

The court's 5-3 decision stressed that the federal government maintains a lead role in immigration law enforcement. It blocked most of Arizona's law, but left intact a the section directing law enforcement to conduct immigration status checks during arrests and other police stops. Alabama's law also directs police to check immigration status during traffic stops and arrests.

Most of Alabama's law, widely known as HB56, has been stayed by federal courts, pending the U.S. Supreme Court decision. The 11th Circuit Court of Appeals said in March that it would not rule on the challenges to the law, by a group of immigrant rights groups and the U.S. Department of Justice, until the Supreme Court issued its Arizona ruling.

Attorneys said this morning it is not clear if the appeals court will ask for briefs on the section dealing with immigration status checks or simply move forward with a ruling. No schedule has been announced by the 11th Circuit.

Alabama leaders were quick to hail the court's decision as a victory for state's seeking tougher immigration law enforcement, opponents of the measure said it was a blow to state efforts.

Bentley said he will continue to seek to uphold state immigration law.

"The core of Arizona's anti-illegal immigration law remains," Bentley said. "The Supreme Court has affirmed that states can determine how they will interpret and enforce their anti-illegal immigration laws. We are pleased that the Court recognizes the important roles of states in enforcing immigration laws."

Alabama's far-reaching immigration law has sections dealing with public school enrollees, contracts, harboring and transporting an illegal immigrant, government transactions and college admissions.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's opinion.

"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," Kennedy wrote. "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."

Four justices voted with Kennedy, while three agreed in part and dissented in part. Justice Elena Kagan recused.

Justice Antonin Scalia disagreed with striking down provisions of the Arizona law.

"The Government complains that state officials might not heed 'federal priorities.' Indeed they might not, particularly if those priorities include willful blindness or deliberate inattention to the presence of removable aliens in Arizona," Scalia wrote. "The State's whole complaint -- the reason this law was passed and this case has arisen -- is that the citizens of Arizona believe federal priorities are too lax. The State has the sovereign power to protect its borders more rigorously if it wishes, absent any valid federal prohibition. The Executive's policy choice of lax federal enforcement does not constitute such a prohibition."

The court found that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals should not have blocked the law enforcement status checks prior to a showing that it does conflict with federal law. Kennedy said the provision could raise constitutional concerns depending on how it is applied, including if the status check results in prolonged detention. The provision will be sent back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals for further review.

"Supporters of these laws clearly lost today, " said Justin Cox, staff attorney with the ACLU's Immigrants Rights Project.

"The court sent a strong message that states can't enact their own immigration policy the way that Arizona had attempted to do and the way that Alabama had attempted to do. The decision certainly strengthens our argument as to why Alabama's HB56 is unconstitutional," Cox said.

But Cox acknowledged that opponents of such immigration laws "didn't win everything we wanted" and they were very disappointed the court upheld the reasonable suspicion provision which is similar to Alabama's law.

"The show me your papers provisions is troubling. It's troubling that the court that sort of ignored the impact of these laws. We will have to keep fighting in regards to that provision. But I think supporters of Alabama's law were dealt a pretty big blow today," Cox said

Cox said the justices upheld the provision today, but "they expressly left open the possibility of future lawsuits on the basis of civil rights violations."

Alabama Speaker of the House Mike Hubbard cited the law enforcement provision in calling the ruling a victory for states like Alabama.

"The Court's decision to uphold the real teeth of Arizona's illegal immigration law is a victory for Alabama and for all states that are fed up with the federal government's refusal to enforce the law," Hubbard said in a news release. "States have not only the right, but the duty to uphold the rule of law and protect their citizens, especially when the federal government refuses to do so."

The court rejected the arguments made by Arizona -- and also made by Alabama -- that creating separate state laws for federal immigration violations does not conflict with federal law.

In dealing with Arizona's requirement that an alien must carry paperwork showing legal status, the court found that Arizona could not add state criminal charges.

"Arizona contends that (the carrying papers section) can survive preemption because the provision has the same aim as federal law and adopts its substantive standards," Kennedy wrote. "This argument not only ignores the basic premise of field preemption -- that States may not enter, in any respect, an area the Federal Government has reserved for itself -- but also is unpersuasive on its own terms.





The American Civil Liberties Union said the fight against the Arizona law and similar measures will continue.

"The Supreme Court's decision to uphold the 'show me your papers' provision for now will lead to widespread civil rights violations until it is reviewed again and possibly struck down," ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said. "Today's decision is an invitation for more litigation, while civil rights are inevitably violated."


Birmingham News Staff Writer Kim Chandler contributed to this story.

Updated at 1:30 p.m. Updated at 4 p.m. to include Bentley video.