ARIZONA IMMIGRATION BILL IN THE COURTS: ROUND 1

Parts of Arizona Law Blocked by Federal Court

As reported on Real Law Radio's Home Page, a Federal Judge has stopped the State of Arizona from implementing parts of its controversial immigration bill. And according to a press release from the Governor of Arizona [pdf], the State will immediately appeal the ruling to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco (the final stop before the U.S. Supreme Court) on Thursday July 29, 2010. Arizona is asking the appellate court to act quickly and lift the injunction, allowing the blocked provisions to take effect.

Of course T.V. personalities and politicians are starting to get fired up. So now is the time to put a legal lense on this. Through that lense, hopefully reason can replace the fear-based emotionally charged responses that are now being replayed in the media. Here are some core questions that will no doubt be the subject of discussion as this story develops.

Was the Federal Judge's decision "activist"?

No. In an even-handed manner, the judge's analysis reflects an understanding of a serious illegal immigration problem, while at the same time recognizing why it is that federal law always trumps conflicting state law involving the regulation of immigration. The purpose behind the federal regulation of immigration is "to protect the personal liberties of law-abiding aliens through one uniform national system." In spite of the civil rights / discrimination talk, the supremacy of federal law is the primary legal issue here.

Why did the United States succeed in blocking parts of the law - and are those parts now thrown out?

Because the law in question says it can be cut up (or "severed") by a court if various provisions are found to be unconstitutional or otherwise illegal, the judge blocked the parts of the bill that she found to be in conflict with (or "pre-empted by") existing federal law. Those parts are not thrown out yet. That won't happen until the matter is fully litigated, i.e. after the trial judge makes a final determination on the constitutionality of the law and all appeals end. We're only at step one, folks.

What was the Judge's rationale?

Hold on tight. This gets a bit technical. There is a well-established, pre-determined legal analysis that a judge is required to apply to these kinds of disputes. Whenever someone seeks a temporary injunction (or "preliminary injunctive relief") to stop the operation of a law, the judge first asks whether the complaining party is likely to succeed on the merits of its case. The judge then asks whether the complaining party is likely to suffer irreparable harm if the court does not temporarily stop (or "preliminarily enjoin") the enforcement of the law in question. And the last step in the analysis finds the judge asking whether a fair balancing of the issues (or "the balance of equities," in legalese) tips in the favor of the complaining party, after considering the public's interest in a fair and just result. If the answer to all three of these steps is "yes," the party seeking to temporarily stop the operation of the law will succeed. That's what happened here.

Because only parts of the Bill were blocked, who won - and is the blocking a victory for the left (civil rights proponents)?

There is technically no winner yet, the proceedings have literaly just begun. However, things are looking pretty good for the United States, if the trial judge's rationale survives the scrutiny of the appellate courts. As for the civil rights question, this decision did not focus on an analysis of rights per se. This decision focused on and invoked a fundamental constitutional principle: Federal law has supremacy over state law that conflicts with it. At this point, the judge's legal analysis is not focusing on the law's discriminatory effect (or lack of it).

What happens now?

The State of Arizona can immediately appeal the trial court's decision to block parts of the law before anything else happens in the trial court. And that appears to be exactly what Governor Brewer is going to do, according to her latest press release. If it loses there, the State can appeal one last time to the United States Supreme Court. And once those courts are done weighing in, the matter will be sent back to the federal trial court, where the original trial judge will resume presiding over the full litigation of these issues.

Stay tuned to Real Law Radio to get accurate information and analysis about this important legal story!