|
''Arizona v. United States'', , was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's S.B. 1070, a state law intended to punish unauthorized immigrants. At issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The Court ruled that sections 3, 5(C), and 6 of S. B. 1070 were preempted by federal law, but left other parts of the law intact, including a provision that allowed law enforcement to investigate a person's immigration status. == Background == On April 23, 2010, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law SB 1070, which supporters dubbed the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act". The act made it a state misdemeanor crime for an illegal immigrant to be in Arizona without carrying registration documents required by federal law, authorizes state and local law enforcement of federal immigration laws, and cracks down on those sheltering, hiring and transporting illegal immigrants.〔Arizona SB 1070, §1.〕 The bill's passage immediately sparked constitutional concerns over potential civil rights violations and have accused it of encouraging racial profiling. Tens of thousands of people demonstrated against the law in over 70 U.S. cities on May 1, 2010 (International Workers' Day). A rally in Los Angeles, attended by Cardinal Mahoney, attracted between 50,000 and 60,000 people, with protesters waving Mexican flags and chanting "Sí se puede".〔〔〔 The city had become the national epicenter of protests against the Arizona law. Around 25,000 people were at a protest in Dallas and more than 5,000 were in Chicago and Milwaukee, while rallies in other cities generally attracted around a thousand people or so.〔〔 There and in some other locations, demonstrators expressed frustration with what they saw as the administration's lack of action on immigration reform, with signs holding messages such as "Hey Obama! Don't deport my mama."〔 The case was filed by the United States Justice Department in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on July 6, 2010,〔7.06.10 DOJ Lawsuit http://www.justice.gov/opa/documents/az-complaint.pdf〕 challenging Arizona's Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act as usurping the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement. The plaintiffs also referenced the notion of federal preemption and stated that, "The Constitution and the federal immigration laws do not permit the development of a patchwork of state and local immigration policies throughout the country". Additionally, the Justice Department in its July 6, 2010 motion, requested that the federal courts issue an injunction to enjoin enforcement of the law before it goes into effect.〔US Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/DOJ-AZ-brief-7-6-10.pdf〕 Arizona responded to the motion.〔Arizona's response to Motion for Preliminary Injunction http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072010_USvAZDefendantsResponsePlaintiffMotionPI.pdf〕 The 1976 precedent of ''De Canas v. Bica'' was relied upon in Arizona's Motion. On Wednesday, July 28, 2010, Judge Susan R. Bolton ruled, blocking key portions of SB 1070 including "requiring police to check the immigration status of those they arrest or whom they stop and suspect are in the country undocumented would overwhelm the federal government's ability to respond, and could mean legal immigrants are wrongly arrested." Judge Bolton wrote: Federal resources will be taxed and diverted from federal enforcement priorities as a result of the increase in requests for immigration status determination that will flow from Arizona〔 Governor Brewer promised to appeal the ruling, calling it "a temporary bump in the road." 〔(【引用サイトリンク】 title=Judge blocks Arizona's controversial immigration law )〕 Several states jointly filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae. The brief supported Arizona. The States of Michigan, Florida, Alabama, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia, along with the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, filed their proposed brief on July 14, 2010. The brief stated that it "defends the States' authority to concurrently enforce federal immigration laws, especially in light of the selective and even lack of enforcement of those laws by the Obama administration. Under the current situation, the States have lost control over their borders and are left to guess at the reality of the law."〔States' July 14 Amici http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-46849_47203-240761--,00.html〕 The Latin American countries of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguay, and Peru filed an amicus brief in support of the United States. Additionally, 81 members of the U.S. Congress filed a Proposed Brief of Amici Curiae.〔Trent Franks press release http://franks.house.gov/press_releases/480〕〔Congressmen Amici http://republicans.judiciary.house.gov/Media/PDFs/U%20S%20%20v%20%20Arizona%20Amicus%207%2020%202010.pdf〕 The brief supported Arizona. On July 28, 2010, Judge Bolton issued an order denying in part and granting in part the United States' Motion for Preliminary Injunction heard the prior week.〔Bolton 7.28.10 Injunction Order http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/072810_ArizonaRuling.pdf〕 Among the provisions that will go into effect are the following: A.R.S. § 11-1051(A): prohibiting Arizona officials, agencies, and political subdivisions from limiting enforcement of federal immigration laws; A.R.S. § 11-1051(C)-(F): requiring that state officials work with federal officials with regard to undocumented immigrants; and, A.R.S. § 11-1051(G)-(L): allowing legal residents to sue any state official, agency, or political subdivision for adopting a policy of restricting enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law. See 7/28/2010 Order An appeal of the US District Court's 7/28/2010 ruling was filed on July 29, 2010. A motion to expedite the normal appeal schedule was also filed. Arizona gave the following reasons for the motion to expedite:〔7.29.10 Arizona's Motion to Expedite Appeal http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072910_MotionForExpeditedBriefingSchedule.pdf〕 Good cause exists to expedite this appeal under Ninth Circuit Rules 27-12 and 34-3 and 28 U.S.C. § 1657 because it is an appeal of a preliminary injunction enjoining several key provisions of SB 1070 that the Arizona Legislature determined were critical to address serious criminal, environmental, and economic problems Arizona has been suffering as a consequence of undocumented immigration and the lack of effective enforcement activity by the federal government. An expedited briefing schedule will not unreasonably burden the parties because it is consistent with the expedited briefing schedule Plaintiff-Appellee received for the initial ruling on its Motion for Preliminary Injunction, the issues on appeal are narrower than those the district court addressed and have largely been briefed by the parties, and the parties are well represented with sufficient counsel to brief the issues under the schedule Defendants-Appellants have proposed. Arizona's Governor requested the following appeal schedule: opening brief due August 12, 2010, response brief due August 26, 2010, reply brief due September 2, 2010, and oral argument during week of September 13, basically a 30-day schedule, almost twice the schedule allowed for the original motion for preliminary injunction.〔Defendant's Appeal http://azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/PR_072910_PreliminaryInjunctionAppeal.pdf〕 On July 30, 2010, the Appeals Court ordered the following appeal schedule: * opening brief due August 26, 2010 * response brief due September 23, 2010 * reply brief due 14 days after response * oral argument (hearing) during first week of November 2010 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Arizona v. United States」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|