It was a very good day for the State of Arizona at the U.S. Supreme Court.
During oral arguments before eight Justices (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from this case), it became clear 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.
In the run-up to today’s arguments, there’s been much written and said about how the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional – that a provision that requires state law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense is somehow discriminatory and unconstitutional.
But at the outset, the Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General if Arizona’s S.B. 1070 involves racial or ethnic profiling. The government repeatedly responded: “No, it does not.” The fact that the government conceded that the law does not involve racial or ethnic profiling is very significant because it undercuts an argument that’s been repeatedly used to challenge the immigration measure.
In fact, there was skepticism from several Justices about the Solicitor General’s argument that it was not appropriate for Arizona to act to protect its citizens and border, especially since the federal government has failed to do so. “You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government’s attorney. She told him that she was “terribly confused” by his arguments.
In a debate today on FOX News, I told Megyn Kelly that I am optimistic that the Arizona law will be upheld by a majority of the high court.
During oral arguments before eight Justices (Justice Elena Kagan recused herself from this case), it became clear 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.
In the run-up to today’s arguments, there’s been much written and said about how the Arizona immigration law is unconstitutional – that a provision that requires state law enforcement officials to verify a person’s legal status when they’re stopped on suspicion of committing a separate offense is somehow discriminatory and unconstitutional.
But at the outset, the Chief Justice asked the Solicitor General if Arizona’s S.B. 1070 involves racial or ethnic profiling. The government repeatedly responded: “No, it does not.” The fact that the government conceded that the law does not involve racial or ethnic profiling is very significant because it undercuts an argument that’s been repeatedly used to challenge the immigration measure.
In fact, there was skepticism from several Justices about the Solicitor General’s argument that it was not appropriate for Arizona to act to protect its citizens and border, especially since the federal government has failed to do so. “You can see it’s not selling very well,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor told the government’s attorney. She told him that she was “terribly confused” by his arguments.
In a debate today on FOX News, I told Megyn Kelly that I am optimistic that the Arizona law will be upheld by a majority of the high court.
No comments:
Post a Comment