It's Looking Good for Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigration Law It's Looking Good for Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigration Law
It's Looking Good for Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigr

It's Looking Good for Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigr

It's Looking Good for Supreme Court to Uphold Arizona Immigration Law

American Center for Law and Justice

The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), representing 57 members of Congress and more than 65,000 Americans, said yesterday it is optimistic that the US Supreme Court will uphold the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law based on the oral arguments that took place yesterday.

“What became very clear during the intense questioning is that a majority of the Justices seem to believe that Arizona has a legitimate role in the enforcement of laws designed to protect its citizens and borders,” said Jay Sekulow, Chief Counsel of the ACLJ, who attended oral arguments today. “It was also important to note that during the arguments, the government, which is challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, conceded that S.B. 1070 does not involve racial or ethnic profiling – an argument that’s been repeatedly used to challenge the immigration measure. While these cases are always difficult to predict as a result of oral arguments, I am hopeful the court will conclude that Arizona acted properly and constitutionally to protect its citizens and borders.”

The ACLJ filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court representing 57 members of Congress and more than 65,000 Americans backing the Arizona law.

The ACLJ amicus brief, posted here, contends a decision by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit should be reversed "because it exalts Administrative 'priorities and strategies' over Congress's clear and manifest intent to welcome state involvement in the enforcement of federal immigration law." The brief argues the appeals court decision "sets up an untenable conflict between Congressional immigration policy and Administrative 'priorities' that the separation of powers doctrine requires the Administration to lose."

The brief asserts that Arizona acted properly by instituting S.B. 1070:

"Although states may not pass laws setting immigration policy, they may pass harmonious laws that further Congress’s purposes. Because S.B. 1070 is fully consonant with federal immigration laws, mirroring their standards and definitions, it is not preempted. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to the contrary is based on conjured conflicts that have no basis in statutory language or other Congressionally established immigration policy."

© 2012, ACLJ
Search by Keyword

Search by Keyword

Copyright ©2009 Victorious Living Publishing House, Wendell, NC
info@faithissues.com