LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
By Julie Myers Wood, President Immigration and Customs Solutions, LLC
Julie Myers Wood, former Assistant Secretary running U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, analyzes the U.S. District Court decision (2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75558) enjoining parts of the controversial new Arizona immigration law (S.B. 1070, amended by H.B. 2162), based on her experience as the head of ICE for nearly three years. She also has been a prosecutor and worked in several other government positions, all of which give her special insight in this area.
"On July 28, 2010, U.S. District Judge Susan R. Bolton issued a widely awaited opinion in United States v. Arizona, granting in part the motion of the United States for a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Arizona's immigration enforcement law Senate Bill 1070," writes Julie Myers Wood. "Although there are some provisions in the law that were not preliminarily enjoined, the court's opinion has been widely viewed as a substantial victory for those who sought to stop enforcement of S.B. 1070. The opinion provides the framework for the long and expensive legal fight over the Bill, sets the stage for the primary arguments on appeal, and provides ammunition to supporters and opponents of S.B.1070."
"The first line of Judge Bolton's opinion makes clear that the current federal resources devoted to interior and border enforcement are grossly inadequate to combat the 'rampant illegal immigration, escalating drug and human trafficking crimes, and serious public safety concerns' in Arizona. The court treats these problems as settled fact, not requiring a citation of any kind," states the author. "While this is no surprise to the people of Arizona, Judge Bolton's judicial acknowledgment of the problem makes it even more significant and makes the part of her decision to prevent Arizona from enforcing some portions of S.B.1070 based on federal preemption even more troubling. For although the opinion makes clear that federal resources are insufficient, the United States insists on assuming the entire responsibility to address illegal immigration. Accordingly, as a policy matter, what are the citizens of Arizona left with? Simply a declaration on the part of the United States that Arizona's expressed needs are not 'federal priorities,' but that Arizona is powerless to address the rampant illegal immigration and associated criminal activity in the state."
"At the beginning of her analysis, Judge Bolton declined to consider enjoining S.B. 1070 in its entirety," explains Julie Myers Wood. "Instead, after first discussing the severability provision in S.B. 1070, the court stated that it was required to proceed with a provision-by-provision analysis of S.B. 1070 and evaluate the constitutionality of each provision therein. This provision-by-provision approach should be helpful to Arizona on appeal, as it highlights some of the inconsistencies in the court's reasoning."
Julie Myers Wood is the president of Immigration and Customs Solutions, LLC (http://www.iandcsolutions.com/). Prior to founding the company, Ms. Wood served as Assistant Secretary (head) of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for nearly three years. In this role, she led the largest investigative component of the Department of Homeland Security and the second-largest investigative agency in the federal government, with more than 17,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $5 billion.
Subscribers can access the complete commentary of Julie Myers Wood: Flawed Analysis Blocks Parts of 2010 Arizona Immigration Law, S.B. 1070 on lexis.com. Additional fees may be incurred. (Approx. 13 pages.)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase the Immigration Emerging Issues Analysis content through our lexisONE Research Packages.