How do i cite sb1070

The lower courts agreed that four provisions of S. Justice Elena Kagan did not participate in the case, presumably because she was involved in earlier stages of the case while she served as the Solicitor General of the United States.

So the fifth vote of the Chief Justice was critical to having an actual ruling by the Supreme Court; otherwise, the Court would have tied four-to-four on three provisions of S.

With that groundwork laid, the Court then turned to the four provisions of S. First up was Section 3 of the law, which makes it a crime to fail to carry valid immigration papers while in Arizona. The state had argued that this provision should survive because it essentially does the same thing as federal law, which also requires immigrants to carry valid papers.

But the majority of the Court was unconvinced. The Court next turned to Section 5 C of S. Unlike Section 3, Section 5 C has no counterpart in federal law. Although Arizona argued that Section 5 C does not conflict with any federal laws because the federal system only deals with employers, and does not make it a crime for undocumented workers to work in this country, the Court was unmoved.

The third and final provision that the Court struck down was Section 6 of S. It would allow police officers to arrest someone without a warrant if the police officer has probable cause to believe that the individual has done something that would justify his deportation from the United States. Under the federal system, an undocumented immigrant can only be arrested and held for possible removal if there is a warrant for his arrest or if he is likely to escape before police can get a warrant.

Because Section 6 would give state law enforcement officials a much broader power to make arrests than under the federal system, the Court concluded, it cannot stand.

Much of the late April oral argument in the case focused on Section 2 B of S. At oral argument in April, it seemed likely that the provision could survive, and it did — at least for now. Citing language in the Arizona law that prohibits police officers from considering race or national origin, the Court held that the provision could at least go into effect for now. But it left open the possibility that opponents of the law could return to court to challenge it once it has been enforced and Arizona courts have a chance to interpret it.

The Supreme Court made quite clear that the key to the provision surviving in the future will be whether it is interpreted in a way that does not prolong detentions of people who are stopped by police.

The upshot is that if a person is arrested, Arizona can check his immigration status while it holds him. But if the person is merely detained — for example, at a traffic stop — the immigration check will probably take too long and he will probably have to be released. While this bipartisan effort to reform our immigration system progresses, the Department of Homeland Security will continue to enforce the laws on the books by enhancing border security and removing criminal aliens from this country.

Justice News Department of Justice. Tuesday, July 6, Component s :. Office of Public Affairs. Raymond Michalowski. Characterized at the time as the harshest anti-immigration law in the country, SB sought to drive illegalized immigrants out of the state by making ordinary life unlivable for them.

This article examines four claims regarding the birth, life and possible death of SB First, the law emerged as a political response to a right-wing populism by promising to preserve White hegemony in Arizona by blunting the growth of the state's Latino population. Second, the law facilitated the state's interest in legitimacy by promising to restore "the border, "citizenship and "sovereignty as protections against the consequences of globalization.

Third, once the Arizona business community, which had been silent about SB, realized that the law was threatening economic growth, it mobilized to forestall further anti-immigrant legislation in the state. Fourth, the June decision by the US Supreme Court in the case of Arizona v United States signals that SB and copycat legislation around the country will loose political traction as the threats they pose to capital accumulation become more widely recognized, and the investor class and their political allies mobilize to stop the passage or weaken the impact of these laws.

Ethnic cleansing American style : SB , nativism and the contradictions of neo-liberal globalization.