Federal judge Susan Bolton blocks key parts of Arizona immigration law

Judge Bolton grants a temporary injunction of the toughest parts of the law while it is further adjudicated, but allowed other parts of the law- to stand.
Among those provisions left standing is a prohibition on the creation of "sanctuary cities," the subject of my posting today in the Chicago Daily Observer.
I haven't read the opinion (linked below) yet, but the immediate thought that came to mind was to wonder about her argue based on federal preemption of state laws. (Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.) Kidnapping and bank robbery are federal crimes; does that mean any state laws criminalizing kidnapping and bank robbery are, hence, preempted? Could state laws that "create too much of a burden" on federal authorities also be ruled unconstitutional? 
I'll be back with more thoughts (if I have any) created by reading the decision. 
A quick analysis of the judge's decisions is here.

The complete 36-page decision is here.

The Associated Press story is here.


Leave a comment
  • As I suggested to someone on the Blago Board, maybe you should go to law school first, or, as you realize, read the decision before postulating hypotheticals.

    At least you recognize the Supremacy Clause.

    Since you recognize that the decision, in effect, upheld banning sanctuary cities, the question you posted in the prior post is moot, or the explanation of the distinction should be clear to you now.

    The questions you raise above implicate the Commerce Clause. Sure, garden variety kidnapping and robbery are only state concerns. Interstate kidnapping implicates federal law. Likewise, the Justice Department didn't challenge the human smuggling and picking up day laborer provisions, even though they clearly are targeted at illegal immigrants, but are more broadly applicable.

    As I noted in your prior post, the Justice Department didn't challenge laws that said that the state can cooperate with the feds. However, Arizona seemed to go overboard in making it a state offense not to have federal immigration papers, and authorized warrantless searches in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

    As I said in my last post, if the press would really analyze the decision, and not just say "most of the law was struck down," the decision would not appear so out in left field as it is portrayed.

    Hence, since you mentioned politics, I would ask what politics the press is playing, since the more informed can find the decision and analyze it for themselves.

  • well if the feds won't enforce this federal law which one is next.i see Arizona as tring to defend themselves.all the ILLEGAL immigrant activists can get their panties in a bunch but this is not all abouit latinos,although a huge percentage of it is.what a simple solution...cut off the free money,they'll all leave.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: