Julie Myers Wood, former assistant secretary running U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, analyzes the Ninth Circuit's decision upholding a preliminary injunction against some of the controversial Arizona immigration law (S.B. 1070, amended by H.B. 2162). She critiques the majority and dissenting opinions, and offers advice to legislators trying to draft laws that will withstand scrutiny.
"Arizona's ambitious attempt to enhance enforcement of immigration laws and address the pressing problem of illegal immigration in the state took another hit last week. In a split decision, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's opinion granting the U.S. government's request for a preliminary injunction on four key provisions of the Arizona immigration enforcement law, S.B. 1070: Sections 2(B), 3, 5(C), and 6. Judge Paez wrote the opinion in United States v. Arizona for the court. Judge Noonan concurred in the opinion, and Judge Bea concurred in part and dissented in part. "From a procedural standpoint, while the only issue before the Ninth Circuit was the district court's preliminary injunction rather than a final ruling on the merits, the district court's and Ninth Circuit's rulings strongly suggest that the United States will likewise prevail on the merits of its challenge in the district court. Thus, despite the preliminary nature of the issue before the Ninth Circuit, that court's affirmance of the preliminary injunction is a significant victory for the U.S. government's case against the Arizona law. Arizona is currently considering its options, which may include an immediate appeal to the Supreme Court. Even though the Ninth Circuit is known for having more reversals than any other federal circuit, Arizona cannot count on obtaining relief from the nation's highest court."The Ninth Circuit's opinion is long, but worth reading in its entirety. Unfortunately, the lack of civility that regrettably too often occurs in the immigration debate is scattered throughout the opinion."
Access the full version of the commentary with your lexis.com ID. Additional fees may be incurred. (Approx. 11 pages.)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you can purchase this commentary on the LexisNexis Store, or you can access this commentary and additional Emerging Issues Analysis content through LexisNexis Discounted Area of Law Research Plans.
Lexis.com subscribers can access the Lexis enhanced version of the Ninth Circuit decision with summary, headnotes, and Shepard's, United States v. Arizona, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 7413 (9th Cir. Ariz. Apr. 11, 2011).
For more on this subject, see Charles Gordon, Stanley Mailman, and Stephen Yale-Loehr, Immigration Law and Procedure §9.03; Julie Myers Wood: Flawed Analysis Blocks Parts of 2010 Arizona Immigration Law, 2010 Emerging Issues 5271; Julie Myers Wood Discusses Arizona's Controversial Immigration Law, 2010 Emerging Issues 5019. Lexis.com subscribers may also access additional material on Arizona's Immigration Law - S.B. 1070 and the complete Lexis.com library of Immigration materials.
Subscribe to Bender's Immigration Bulletin at the LexisNexis Store.
For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.