Supreme Court skeptical of striking down Arizona immigration law

WASHINGTON  — Supreme Court justices strongly suggested Wednesday that they are ready to allow Arizona to enforce part of a controversial state law requiring police officers to check the immigration status of people they think are in the country illegally.
Liberal and conservative justices reacted skeptically to the Obama administration's argument that the state exceeded its authority when it made the records check, and another provision allowing suspected illegal immigrants to be arrested without a warrant, part of Arizona law aimed at driving illegal immigrants elsewhere.
"You can see it's not selling very well," Justice Sonia Sotomayor told Obama administration Solicitor General Donald Verrilli.

It was unclear what the court would do with other aspects of the law that have been put on hold by lower federal courts. The other blocked provisions make it a state crime for immigrants not to have immigration registration papers and for illegal immigrants to seek work or hold a job.
Gov. Jan Brewer, who signed the law two years ago, was on hand for the final argument of the court's term.
The latest high court clash between the administration and states turns on the extent of states' role in immigration policy, which is essentially under the federal government's control.
Verrilli tried to persuade the justices that they should view the law in its entirety and inconsistent with federal immigration policy. He said the records check would allow the state to "engage effectively in mass incarceration" of undocumented immigrants.
But Chief Justice John Roberts was among those on the court who took issue with Verrilli's characterization of the check of immigration status, saying the state merely wants to notify federal authorities it has someone in custody who may be in the U.S. illegally. "It seems to me that the federal government just doesn't want to know who's here illegally and who's not," Roberts said.


Before U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. could deliver his opening comments, chief justice John Roberts in an unusual move interrupted to say that “no part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling.”


Verrilli agreed and said Arizona’s law should be struck down because it conflicts with the federal government’s “exclusive” power of immigration.


But he ran into a barrage of skeptical questions, including from some of the court’s liberals. Justice Stephen Breyer said he did not see why Arizona’s police would violate federal immigration law if they simply notified federal agents they had a possible illegal immigrant in custody. Breyer said he would be concerned only if the state said it could arrest and jail illegal aliens on its own.


Near the end of the argument, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, advised Verrilli he needed a stronger argument than the ones he delivered. His argument “is not selling very well,” she commented.


But the questions also suggested the court may hand down a split decision. Most of the justices, including  Roberts, said they were troubled by two parts of the Arizona law. One would make it a state crime for aliens not to carry documents. A second would make it a state crime for illegal aliens to look for work.


Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy said they appear to go beyond federal law and therefore could be blocked as clashing with federal law.


But the main provision at issue was the requirement that Arizona’s police officers contact federal officials and check the immigration status of anyone who is lawfully stopped and appears to be an illegal immigrant.


A federal judge in Phoenix and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that provision on the grounds that it would gave state officials the power to enforce federal immigration law.

Roberts and most of the justices said they disagreed with that interpretation.


“It doesn’t require you to remove one more alien,” the chief justice told Verrilli. Federal officials would be free to release anyone whom they decided against holding, he said.