Federal lawsuit against Arizona's immigration law to be announced today

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 by Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano, a former Arizona governor.

The lawsuit will argue that Arizona's law requiring state and local police to question and possibly arrest illegal immigrants during the enforcement of other laws such as traffic stops usurps federal authority.

The government will likely seek an injunction to delay the July 29 implementation of the law until the case is resolved.

The government contends that the Arizona law violates the supremacy clause of the Constitution, a legal theory that says federal laws override state laws. It is already illegal under federal law to be in the country illegally, although the punishment and enforcement tactics of the Arizona are much more severe.

Prior to seeing the lawsuit or receiving any official notification, Gov. Jan Brewer's spokesman called the reported decision to sue "a terribly bad decision."

"Arizona obviously has a terrible border security crisis that needs to be addressed, so Gov. Brewer has repeatedly said she would have preferred the resources and attention of the federal government would be focused on that crisis rather than this," spokesman Paul Senseman said.

Three of the five Democrats in Arizona's congressional delegation, who are facing tough re-election battles, had also urged Obama not to try to block the law from going into effect.

"This lawsuit is a sideshow, distracting us from the real task at hand," Democratic Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick said in a statement Tuesday. "A court battle between the federal government and Arizona will not move us closer to securing the border or fixing America's broken immigration system."

Link to article

Thoughts?

It's just odd that one branch of the government would file lawsuit against another. Odd.

It's just odd that one branch of the government would file lawsuit against another. Odd.

sonicare

It's just odd that one branch of the government would file lawsuit against another. Odd.

sonicare

The laws Arizona made may be questionable, but at least they are doing something about this plague of illegal immigration we have now.

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

I could kind of see this coming, it'll be interesting how it plays out though.

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

Well said, I agree.

If the law is constitutional it will be held. If it isn't, it will be struck down and it should be, shouldn't it? Americans hold the constitution to be sacred, so we should probably make sure such laws are in line with the constitution if we want to continue to hold it as sacred.

I'm no legal expert, but I think Obama & Co. are going to lose this one. The sad thing is, I think they know they're going to lose, but they are going ahead for political reasons; i.e. they think it will get them more hispanic votes if they are seen "doing something".

The AZ law does not pre-empt federal law, it mimicks it. The language in the AZ law is verbatim from the federal code and the penalty is to hand the people over to the Feds, not lock them up in AZ prison. There is a legal precedent called Concurrent Enforcement that basically says a state may pass and enforce a law that mimicks federal law.

I'll be interested to see the various legal analysts dissect the court filings once they are made public.

Finally, Obama is doing something I like. Still not voting for him though.

Hope Arizona Wins. :) Because Obama is against our 10th amendment: Rights to the states. He wanted to make immigration laws for the entire country. bbkkristian

I'm no legal expert, but I think Obama & Co. are going to lose this one. The sad thing is, I think they know they're going to lose, but they are going ahead for political reasons; i.e. they think it will get them more hispanic votes if they are seen "doing something".

The AZ law does not pre-empt federal law, it mimicks it. The language in the AZ law is verbatim from the federal code and the penalty is to hand the people over to the Feds, not lock them up in AZ prison. There is a legal precedent called Concurrent Enforcement that basically says a state may pass and enforce a law that mimicks federal law.

I'll be interested to see the various legal analysts dissect the court filings once they are made public.

collegeboy64

There will be quite a show, especially if Arizona wins.

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Hope Arizona Wins. :) Because Obama is against our 10th amendment: Rights to the states. He wanted to make immigration laws for the entire country. ProudLarry

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

Regardless of what you think about the case, I hardly think "frivilous" is an appropriate way of describing it... :?

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

My hope is that this goes to the Supreme Court and they find in favor of the Arizona. A frivolous lawsuit from the feds is a bad precedent, to say the least.MAILER_DAEMON

[QUOTE="bbkkristian"]Hope Arizona Wins. :) Because Obama is against our 10th amendment: Rights to the states. He wanted to make immigration laws for the entire country. ProudLarry

I hope Arizona wins. Hopefully when and if they win it will give other states an open door to put in similar laws.testfactor888

Bottom line is this would not have happened if the federal government did its job and secured the border.

Arizona has been pushed into a corner, they had to do something to address the border problem.

Arizona has been pushed into a corner

topsemag55

[QUOTE="topsemag55"]

Arizona has been pushed into a corner

xaos

The concept amused me for a few seconds before I got bored of it and got back in the car.

Supremacy Clause will sink AZ on this case. Arizona is subordinate to the Federal Government, all states are. Arizona can't go just do illegal things just because it feels like it.

I don't know why Republicans want to act like they aren't American all of the sudden, but they're Arizonian or Texan or whateverfirst and foremost.

Supremacy Clause will sink AZ on this case. Arizona is subordinate to the Federal Government, all states are. Arizona can't go just do illegal things just because it feels like it.

I don't know why Republicans want to act like they aren't American all of the sudden, but they're Arizonian or Texan or whateverfirst and foremost.

Ultimas_Blade

Its against AZ law, as well as against fed law,to rob a bank in AZ. Just like every other state has a law against bank robbery. Same bank, same robbery, dual enforcement, state and fed. When will Obama and Holder be filing 50 more lawsuits demanding injunction against state bank robbery laws?

As to your second point: This nation was formed as a republic of independent states under a constitutionally limited federal government. State governments formed the federal govt, not the other way around. The states are not subdivisions of the federal government.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

Supremacy Clause will sink AZ on this case. Arizona is subordinate to the Federal Government, all states are. Arizona can't go just do illegal things just because it feels like it.

I don't know why Republicans want to act like they aren't American all of the sudden, but they're Arizonian or Texan or whateverfirst and foremost.

collegeboy64

Its against AZ law, as well as against fed law,to rob a bank in AZ. Just like every other state has a law against bank robbery. Same bank, same robbery, dual enforcement, state and fed. When will Obama and Holder be filing 50 more lawsuits demanding injunction against state bank robbery laws?

As to your second point: This nation was formed as a republic of independent states under a constitutionally limited federal government. State governments formed the federal govt, not the other way around. The states are not subdivisions of the federal government.

My two cents is that I don't know if Arizona will lose, but I can't blame them for doing a job that the federal government has refused to for decades. Arizona has asked several times for the federal government to do its job and they have refused, so Arizona is going to do its on its own to protect its interests. When you have only 4 states that border Mexic out of 50, i think it is too easy for the other 46 to ignore problems related to their location.

Arizona can't go just do illegal things just because it feels like it.

Ultimas_Blade

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

Arizona can't go just do illegal things just because it feels like it.

dan1776

LoL at OT giving their legal opinion on this matter. Even I have no idea how this will turn out, or likely turn out for that matter. Vandalvideo

Well, I guess if Vandal has no opinion, then its the end of the thread. :?

Come on Vandal, you are probably the most knowledgeable legal poster on OT. No thoughts on federal supremecy vs. concurrent enforcement? How can every state have laws against bank robbery that concur with the federal law? And what about the fact that we have had these "Sanctuary Cities" like San Fran, Austin TX, etc etc that have laws that directly contradict the fed law on immigration and no attempt by the fed to strike these down in court? Does that sort of hypocrisy enter in to the courts decision?

I'm interested in your thoughts.