Arizona immigration law fight will be taken to high court
PHOENIX — Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer announced yesterday that she will ask the Supreme Court to overturn a ruling that put the most controversial parts of the state's immigration enforcement law on hold.
The planned appeal to the high court was announced after Brewer lost an initial appeal on April 11, when a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals refused to reverse a lower court's order that prevented key parts of the law from being enforced.
Attorney General Tom Horne said going directly to the Supreme Court and skipping a possible second appeal to the 9th Circuit will save time in resolving the case, while Brewer said she is confident "Arizona will prevail in its fight to protect its citizens."
The state must file the appeal by a July 11 deadline, the two Republican elected officials said. The Supreme Court has discretion on whether to hear the appeal on the lower court's order.
"It seems like this is a big enough national issue that it will ultimately be determined by the United States Supreme Court," Horne said.
In its April ruling, the 9th Circuit panel said federal officials are likely to prove the law is unconstitutional and succeed in their argument that Congress has given the federal government sole authority to enforce immigration laws.
Brewer's lawyers argued the federal government hasn't effectively enforced immigration law at the border and in Arizona's interior and that the state's intent in passing the law was to assist federal authorities as Congress has encouraged.
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.
- 3 shot outside Texas cartoon exhibit of Muhammad artwork
- Curfew lifted in Baltimore
- U.S. intel misjudged al-Qaida, ex-CIA official’s book says
- Bullying bad for children’s mental health, study hints
- Justice Department promises better disclosure of cellphone tracking
- Forecasters discuss ways to improve tornado warnings
- Number of clinics, abortions down in Ohio amid flurry of limiting laws
- Boehner urges Clinton to push trade measures
- Vertical land movement causing Duck, N.C., beach to sink
- Researchers find new, elusive bird species
- Ex-convict arraigned in New York City police officer’s shooting