Jay Sekulow: SCOTUS Puts AZ in Tough Spot with Immigration

The Supreme Court today unanimously upheld a key provision of Arizona S.B. 1070 – a provision of the law that gives police authority to check the immigration status of a person while enforcing other laws if ‘reasonable suspicion’ exists that the person is in the United States illegally. That’s the good news.

The bad news: the high court struck down a number of other provisions which Arizona was relying on to secure its borders and protect its citizens. And, there’s more bad news. The provision upheld by the high court is actually in jeopardy because of President Obama’s selective enforcement of immigration laws.

Let’s not forget it was just days ago that President Obama actually changed immigration law by simply issuing a directive – an order to stop deporting many young illegal immigrants who were brought to the United States as children.

This did not go unnoticed by Justice Scalia who issued a stinging dissent that put this fact into proper perspective.

“The issue is a stark one: Are the sovereign states at the mercy of the federal executive’s refusal to enforce the nation’s immigration laws? A good way of answering that question is to ask: Would the states conceivably have entered into the union if the Constitution itself contained the court’s holding? If securing its territory in this fashion is not within the power of Arizona, we should cease referring to it as a sovereign state. . . .To say, as the court does, that Arizona contradicts federal law by enforcing applications of federal immigration law that the president declines to enforce boggles the mind.”

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, Arizona and other states are in a difficult spot now. Even with a constitutional immigration provision upheld by the high court today, we have a president who picks and chooses which laws he wants to enforce. YouTube Preview Image

As you may recall, we represented nearly 60 members of Congress and more than 65,000 Americans in an amicus brief filed with the high court backing Arizona S.B. 1070.

While acknowledging there will be more legal challenges, Arizona Governor Brewer called the high court’s decision to uphold the key provision of the law “a victory for the rule of law.” And the fact is that most Americans not only supported Arizona’s efforts, but wanted the Supreme Court to uphold the entire Arizona immigration law.

Today’s decision, compounded by the continuing overreach of President Obama, raises more questions than it answers when it comes to immigration reform. We will continue to back constitutional measures in Arizona and other states that want to secure their borders and protect their citizens.

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow: Historic Religious Liberty Win – 25 Years Ago Today at Supreme Court

June 15, 1987. I was in Chicago conducting a training program – examining the legal issues – on literature distribution for Jews for Jesus.

Just months earlier, I had delivered oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States on behalf of Jews for Jesus – arguing that literature distribution at airports was a constitutionally-protected activity. It was my first time before the high court, a young and nervous attorney, who presented what was then a unique argument.

Instead of relying solely on the premise that such literature distribution was protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, which had met with limited legal success, I argued that officials at the Los Angeles International Airport actually created a policy forbidding all “First Amendment activities.” My argument was very direct and focused: the policy prohibiting literature distribution violated the free speech rights of my client. My entire argument was aimed at protecting free speech.

You can listen to the oral arguments here.

On that day, June 15, 1987, I knew the Supreme Court would be issuing opinions. There was no internet, no instant communications to find out what the Supreme Court had decided. I placed a call from a pay phone to the Court from Chicago and asked about the status of the case. “A decision has been issued,” the clerk responded. I waited. And then I heard the news. “Nine-zero, unanimous.” I couldn’t believe it. Stunned. That was a very emotional moment.

Each and every Justice agreed that religious speech must be given the same protection as all other protected speech.

The unanimous Court held that the regulation at issue was overbroad on its face; in other words, it was so overreaching and violative of the First Amendment that “no conceivable governmental interest would justify such an absolute prohibition of speech.” It was a resounding win for free speech and religious liberty.

Now, 25 years later to the day, I look back at that first Supreme Court win with fondness and deep gratitude. At the time, I never imagined what would unfold in the following years. I’ve been privileged to return numerous times to the Supreme Court to take part in oral arguments, and very fortunate to have secured additional victories protecting the constitutional rights of Americans.

The Lord has blessed the ACLJ with tremendous success. No question about that.

What is also true is that none of it – not the first Supreme Court win a quarter century ago or any of our other victories – would have been possible without the support of you – our members. There are some who have been with us from the very start. And many others who have joined with us over the years.

I want to thank you for your continued prayers and support. There will always be new threats – new challenges – to our families and to our freedom. And I want you to know that as we celebrate this special anniversary marking our first Supreme Court victory, we remain dedicated to protecting your religious and constitutional freedoms.

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow: Last Chance for AG Holder on Fast & Furious?

A meeting between Rep. Issa and Attorney General Holder is scheduled to take place late today. Here’s the question: will the meeting and the documents expected to be produced by Holder be enough to hold off a scheduled contempt of Congress vote against Holder set for tomorrow in the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee?

We’ve been talking about this for months. The Attorney General and Justice Department continue to stonewall – failing to produce key information that would explain who knew what and when in the botched gun-running DOJ program known as Operation Fast & Furious, which resulted in the murder of a U.S. Border Patrol agent.

Not only has it been impossible to get to the bottom of exactly what happened, the DOJ had to retract a February 4, 2011 letter submitted to Congress – retracted many months later – after it was revealed the letter contained numerous inaccuracies and false information.

Now, with a late day meeting set between Rep. Issa and Attorney General Holder, very big questions still remain.

As I told Megyn Kelly on FOX News today, this is one last chance for Holder. Will he comply with a duly authorized subpoena or not?

The fact of the matter is that this is fast becoming quite a constitutional showdown. And the truth is this is a crisis created by the Attorney General himself. This has not been good lawyering. In fact, the legal strategy employed by the DOJ of stonewalling and providing incorrect information is preposterous.

Will the Attorney General produce the necessary document at today’s meeting with Rep. Issa, the chairman of House Oversight and Government Reform Committee? We will see.

As Rep. Issa put it, “It’s not about meetings, it’s about getting documents.”

Stay tuned.

Jay Sekulow

Jay Sekulow: President Obama’s Arrogance

It’s a tactic that has become the hallmark of his presidency. President Obama declaring a change in U.S. immigration law. No Congressional action. No court decision. Just another executive decision. This time changing immigration law to permit young people who were brought to this country illegally to stay, rather than face deportation.

We should have seen this one coming. The Wall Street Journal points out that President Obama actually revealed his intentions a year ago. “In a speech last year to La Raza, a Hispanic civil rights organization that has criticized the White House for the lack of progress on immigration reform, President Obama mused that he’d like ‘to bypass Congress and change the laws on my own.’ He added, ‘Believe me, the idea of doing things on my own is very tempting. I promise you.’”

Well, the temptation he talked about then proved to be too much for the president. Last Friday, he gave into political temptation. Another power grab.

President Obama and his imperial presidency. Acting alone in deciding which laws to enforce, which to ignore. A constitutional scholar who isn’t following the constitution. A president who doesn’t worry about the separation of powers, circumventing the traditional checks and balances of our constitutional system.

It’s this kind of arrogance that already has drawn a sharp rebuke from many.

Sen. Lindsey Graham called Obama’s action “at best unwise and possibly illegal.” Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) said he is planning to file suit against the Obama Administration to challenge the president’s action.

And respected commentator Charles Krauthammer put it more bluntly: “Beyond the pandering, beyond the politics, beyond the process – is simple constitutional decency. This is out-and-out lawlessness. You had a clip of the president himself say months ago ‘I cannot do this on my own because there are laws on the books.’ Well, I have news for president – the laws remain on the books. They haven’t changed.”

For this White House and this president, there is only one branch of government – the executive branch. And, no doubt, the president will continue to rely on what many have called his executive command authority to push through his agenda.

For more information about Jay Sekulow visit at http://jaysekulow.blogspot.com