Grand Master Melon
29th May 2010, 01:32 AM
by JJ Hensley - May. 29, 2010 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html
The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law.
The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional.
It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring.
Attorney General Terry Goddard's office on Friday issued a statement drawing a connection between the Obama administration's recent involvement in the employer-sanctions case and Goddard's efforts to ward off a federal legal challenge to the state's new law, Senate Bill 1070.
"It is unfortunate that the Department of Justice has taken a belated position against Arizona's efforts to reduce the demand for illegal labor," the statement read.
"As Attorney General Goddard made clear (Friday) morning, we need solutions, not legal arguments from the federal government."
Still, the prospect of simply getting the employer-sanctions law before the nation's highest court was a small victory for attorneys who argued against the law when it was upheld in U.S. District Court in Arizona and in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Julie Pace, one of the attorneys representing 11 business groups that challenged the employer-sanctions law in July 2007 before it was enacted, also noted the potential implications of a Supreme Court decision.
"The Department of Justice's position in its brief issued today is that the Arizona law is unconstitutional," Pace said. "The (Department of Justice) brief underscores the requirement that immigration-enforcement policies should be national and uniform, not a patchwork of different state and local laws."
The Legal Arizona Workers Act went into effect in January 2008 and gives prosecutors the power to revoke the business license of an employer found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker.
Arizona's latest immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Some of the legal challenges to the new law, SB 1070, claim the measure is pre-empted by the U.S. Constitution, which makes immigration a federal issue.
It's a similar challenge to that leveled against the Legal Arizona Worker's Act.
It's therefore not hard to see how a Supreme Court ruling could affect efforts across the country to enact laws similar to the immigration-enforcement statute Gov. Jan Brewer signed last month, Bender said, although predicting Supreme Court decisions is a hazardous proposition.
"You just can't tell now whether what they're going to say is going to have any direct bearing on (SB) 1070. Chances are it will have at least some, and I think there's a very good chance that it will have a lot of bearing," Bender said.
The issue in the employer-sanctions case is rather narrow, Bender said, and focuses on whether states are exempt from being pre-empted by the federal Constitution when it comes to issuing business licenses.
Lower courts have said the Arizona law is not pre-empted by federal law. That should be reversed, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in the filing.
The Arizona law disrupts "a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country," Katyal wrote.
For the court's decision on the employer-sanctions act to impact other state laws targeting immigration, two things have to happen, Bender said.
First, a majority of justices would have to decide the lower courts were wrong in upholding Arizona's sanctions law.
Then, that majority would have to agree to write a broad opinion that addresses the issue of states rights and immigration enforcement, he said.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened to take federal action to stop SB 1070 from going into effect, likely knew exactly what advice the solicitor general was prepared to give the Supreme Court on the employer-sanction's case, Bender said.
It's another signal Holder's office is strongly considering getting involved in Arizona's efforts to criminalize illegal immigration.
"If they're telling the court to take this case - and therefore to raise the possibility that the court would reverse the lower court - that is not at all inconsistent with suing to enjoin 1070," Bender said. "It suggests there is a problem about pre-emption of state law, and the court should resolve at least some of it."
The Arizona Republic
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2010/05/28/20100528arizona-employer-sanctions-supreme-court.html
The federal government has asked the Supreme Court to review Arizona's employer-sanctions law, and a decision could have a ripple effect on similar laws across the country as well as on the state's controversial new immigration law.
The Office of the Solicitor General says in a brief released Friday that the high court should consider a challenge to Arizona's employer-sanctions law, which penalizes business owners who knowingly hire illegal immigrants.
The federal agency recommended the Supreme Court consider whether the 2-year-old employer-sanctions law is unconstitutional.
It's rare that the court ignores the solicitor general's recommendation, experts say. The court will likely make a decision about taking on the case before a summer recess and hear it in the fall, said Paul Bender, an Arizona State University law professor and constitutional-law expert. A decision would likely come sometime next spring.
Attorney General Terry Goddard's office on Friday issued a statement drawing a connection between the Obama administration's recent involvement in the employer-sanctions case and Goddard's efforts to ward off a federal legal challenge to the state's new law, Senate Bill 1070.
"It is unfortunate that the Department of Justice has taken a belated position against Arizona's efforts to reduce the demand for illegal labor," the statement read.
"As Attorney General Goddard made clear (Friday) morning, we need solutions, not legal arguments from the federal government."
Still, the prospect of simply getting the employer-sanctions law before the nation's highest court was a small victory for attorneys who argued against the law when it was upheld in U.S. District Court in Arizona and in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Julie Pace, one of the attorneys representing 11 business groups that challenged the employer-sanctions law in July 2007 before it was enacted, also noted the potential implications of a Supreme Court decision.
"The Department of Justice's position in its brief issued today is that the Arizona law is unconstitutional," Pace said. "The (Department of Justice) brief underscores the requirement that immigration-enforcement policies should be national and uniform, not a patchwork of different state and local laws."
The Legal Arizona Workers Act went into effect in January 2008 and gives prosecutors the power to revoke the business license of an employer found to have knowingly hired an illegal worker.
Arizona's latest immigration law makes it a state crime to be in the country illegally.
Some of the legal challenges to the new law, SB 1070, claim the measure is pre-empted by the U.S. Constitution, which makes immigration a federal issue.
It's a similar challenge to that leveled against the Legal Arizona Worker's Act.
It's therefore not hard to see how a Supreme Court ruling could affect efforts across the country to enact laws similar to the immigration-enforcement statute Gov. Jan Brewer signed last month, Bender said, although predicting Supreme Court decisions is a hazardous proposition.
"You just can't tell now whether what they're going to say is going to have any direct bearing on (SB) 1070. Chances are it will have at least some, and I think there's a very good chance that it will have a lot of bearing," Bender said.
The issue in the employer-sanctions case is rather narrow, Bender said, and focuses on whether states are exempt from being pre-empted by the federal Constitution when it comes to issuing business licenses.
Lower courts have said the Arizona law is not pre-empted by federal law. That should be reversed, acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal said in the filing.
The Arizona law disrupts "a careful balance that Congress struck nearly 25 years ago between two interests of the highest importance: ensuring that employers do not undermine enforcement of immigration laws by hiring unauthorized workers, while also ensuring that employers not discriminate against racial and ethnic minorities legally in the country," Katyal wrote.
For the court's decision on the employer-sanctions act to impact other state laws targeting immigration, two things have to happen, Bender said.
First, a majority of justices would have to decide the lower courts were wrong in upholding Arizona's sanctions law.
Then, that majority would have to agree to write a broad opinion that addresses the issue of states rights and immigration enforcement, he said.
U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, who has threatened to take federal action to stop SB 1070 from going into effect, likely knew exactly what advice the solicitor general was prepared to give the Supreme Court on the employer-sanction's case, Bender said.
It's another signal Holder's office is strongly considering getting involved in Arizona's efforts to criminalize illegal immigration.
"If they're telling the court to take this case - and therefore to raise the possibility that the court would reverse the lower court - that is not at all inconsistent with suing to enjoin 1070," Bender said. "It suggests there is a problem about pre-emption of state law, and the court should resolve at least some of it."