Ruling mixed on Utah immigration law
SALT LAKE CITY — A federal judge issued a split ruling on Wednesday on Utah's controversial immigration law.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups upheld a key provision requiring authorities to check the immigration status of people arrested for felonies or certain misdemeanors such as theft. But he set limits on how it can be implemented.
Waddoups's ruling struck down a provision that allows warrantless arrests based solely on suspicion of immigration status. He tossed a part of the law that made it a state crime to harbor a person in the country illegally and one that requires local officers to investigate immigration offenses.
The law, which was passed more than three years ago, has been shelved pending a court review.
Utah was one of several states to pass nearly identical immigration-enforcement laws after Arizona's well-known measure.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Poll finds most Americans want health insurance subsidies restored if Supreme Court votes against Obamacare provision
- N.D. didn’t inspect pipe before rupture
- Ancient Israeli skull hard proof of migration
- Police to Waze: Not so fast on cop tracker, which they say makes it harder to catch speeders
- Girl’s fatal shooting by Denver officers prompts review of policy
- Federal Highway Trust Fund running on empty
- Deadly fire in Maryland started in faulty electrical outlet, spread to Christmas tree
- Number of children on food stamps hits 6-year high
- Prosecutors fight new try to relocate Boston trial
- Treasure hunter accused of swindling investors captured
- Arkansas rejects proposal to celebrate Gen. Lee, MLK on different days