Tag Archives: ZZ: USA v. Arizona

Washington Post: “[Judge John T. Noonan Jr.] took aim at the core of the Justice Department’s argument . . .  ’I've read your brief, I’ve read the District Court opinion, I’ve heard your interchange with my two colleagues, and I don’t understand your argument,’ Noonan told deputy solicitor general Edwin S. Kneedler. ‘We are dependent as a court on counsel being responsive. . . . You keep saying the problem is that a state officer is told to do something. That’s not a matter of preemption. . . . I would think the proper thing to do is to concede that this is a point where you don’t have an argument.’”

Oral arguments can be viewed on YouTube.

Arizona Republic: “In an hour-long hearing Monday, three federal judges peppered lawyers on both sides of Senate Bill 1070 with testy rapid-fire legal questions as the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals began considering whether to keep portions of Arizona’s immigration law from going into effect.”

Arizona Daily Star: “Three federal judges will hear arguments today by attorneys for the governor on why Arizona should be allowed to start enforcing SB 1070 . . . Technically speaking today’s hearing . . . concerns whether U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton acted properly in enjoining the state from enforcing several sections while the case makes its way through the legal system . . . But the panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals will need to reach at least a preliminary decision on arguments by the Obama administration that Arizona acted illegally in usurping power reserved for the federal government.” | News round-up from How Appealing.

Sacramento Bee: “Judicial Watch, the public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, today announced that it has filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Obama Department of Justice (DOJ) for information regarding the DOJ’s decision to file a lawsuit against Arizona over the state’s tough new illegal immigration law, SB 1070. Judicial Watch seeks documents pertaining to the Obama administration’s contacts with third party organizations, such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), in making the decision to file the lawsuit.”

Politico: “In a new twist in the fight over Arizona’s immigration law, Republican Gov. Jan Brewer on Tuesday asked a federal court to disallow foreign governments from joining the U.S. Department of Justice lawsuit to overturn the law.”

Associated Press: “Mexico and 10 other Latin American countries want a federal appeals court to consider their viewpoints in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s appeal of a ruling that put parts of her state’s new immigration law on hold.”

Associated Press: “[The 9th Circuit] says it will hear arguments Nov. 1 in Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer’s appeal of a ruling that put parts of the state’s new immigration law on hold.”

OneNewsNow: “A Christian law firm is disappointed but not surprised that a federal judge last week threw out most of the Arizona immigration law that was designed to make it easier for state and local law enforcement to apprehend suspected illegal aliens. Prior to last week’s decision, the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) had filed an amicus brief supporting the Arizona law. Consequently, the law firm shared the disappointment with other border-enforcement activists once the final decision was reached.”

Arizona Daily Star: “The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has rejected a request by Gov. Jan Brewer for an expedited review of a judge’s decision to enjoin the state from enforcing five sections of the law that were supposed to have taken effect Thursday. The judges gave no reason for their refusal.”

Mercury News: “The epic legal struggle over Arizona’s immigration crackdown has landed in a San Francisco-based federal appeals court that is all too familiar with being the center of the nation’s attention — and its inevitable label as the nation’s most liberal court.”

National Review Online Editorial: “The judge twists facts and logic to support the Justice Department’s claim that the state law preempts the federal immigration scheme. To do so, she accepts Justice’s implicit argument that it’s not the letter of the federal law that matters, but what parts of the law the executive decides to enforce. If her reasoning stands, we will basically cut Congress out of immigration policy and the states out of enforcement. Instead, our immigration system will entirely depend on executive discretion at a time when the executive has little interest in enforcing the law.”

Associated Press: “A federal judge on Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona’s immigration law from taking effect, delivering a last-minute victory to opponents of the crackdown. The overall law will still take effect Thursday, but without the provisions that angered opponents – including sections that required officers to check a person’s immigration status while enforcing other laws.” | USA v. Arizona, No. CV 10-1413-PHX-SRB (D. Ariz. July 28, 2010)