Arizona’s controversial immigration law, SB 1070, has seen its share of court challenges but on Wednesday the Supreme Court will finally hear oral arguments on the case in Arizona v. United States.
The main issue before the court is whether or not federal law supersedes state law on SB 1070’s key provisions. There are four parts of the law that will be debated. One that requires local law enforcement to check the citizenship of anyone they arrest or detain, another that makes it a misdemeanor to be in the country illegally and solicit work, a third that requires non-citizens to carry papers proving they’re here legally and the last which allows authorities to arrest someone if they have probable cause to believe the person is an illegal immigrant and has committed a crime.
According to the state of Arizona none of these provisions is expressly prohibited by federal law, therefore SB 1070 should stand. However the government says these provisions do conflict, but even if they didn’t SB 1070 interferes with the countries abilities to achieve certain objectives so federal law trumps. Furthermore, the government argues that anything having to do with immigration enforcement is the sole responsibility of the feds because it’s a foreign policy issue.
How will both sides argue their case? How likely is it the court will come down on one side or another? How do you feel the court should rule?
Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State; Constitutional law expert and Former Law Professor at University of Missouri-Kansas City (UMKC); Former Counsel to U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft (from 2001-2003, he was the Attorney General's Chief Adviser on immigration law)
Daryl M. Williams, Attorney who submitted an Amicus Brief to the Supreme Court against SB-1070 on behalf of Arizona Employers for Immigration Reform, Founding Partner, Baird, Williams & Greer, a law firm based in Phoenix.