Arizona Cases Getting Supreme Court Review

Details: 19 November 2010

What’s up with Arizona?

The Grand Canyon state seems to be getting a lot of attention recently, especially with regard to high-profile challenges to its laws, challenges which the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to decide.

On Nov. 3, the Court heard oral arguments pertaining to an ACLU-type challenge to Arizona’s 1997 law that allows individuals to claim tax credits for contributions to non-profit organizations that use the funds to provide tuition scholarships to help children enroll in non-governmental schools. Last year, Arizona’s program awarded 27,000 scholarships to help children pay tuition at 373 schools. (Legislation proposing a similar program in Nebraska, LB 67, was introduced during the last past, 101st Legislature, but was held by the Revenue Committee.)

The rationale of the legal challenge is that since the scholarships can be used by recipients to pay tuition at religiously-based schools, Arizona’s law violates the ban on establishing religion set forth in First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s decision is expected next spring.

Next month, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on a challenge to Arizona’s 2007 law that authorizes suspension and revocation of licenses to operate when businesses are found to have knowingly hired unauthorized immigrants. The challenge from businesses and civil rights advocates is that this law violates the preemption doctrine, derived from the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it interferes with Federal-law jurisdiction over immigration policy and enforcement.

It is important to note that this Arizona law is not the same one that has been receiving all the political and legal attention recently. It’s not the "Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act," SB 1070 as amended by HB 2162, passed by the Arizona Legislature and dramatically signed into law by Governor Brewer last April. That law’s most notorious provision is the one that requires state and local law enforcement personnel to make "a reasonable attempt" to determine the immigration status of any individual who is the subject of a lawful stop, detention or arrest "where reasonable suspicion exists" (without any profiling, of course) "that the person is an alien and unlawfully present in the United States."

That law, the key parts of which are currently enjoined, was argued in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Nov. 1. It, too, is likely to be the focus of U.S. Supreme Court review, perhaps some time next year.

On another aspect of the hot topic of immigration, it is worth noting that Nebraska now has eight counties tied into to the Secure Communities program, an initiative of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to improve the identification and deportation of aliens convicted of crimes.

ICE announced Nov. 2 that Secure Communities in Nebraska now includes law enforcement in Adams, Hall, Hamilton, Howard, Madison and Merrick counties, as well as Douglas and Lancaster, which were brought in Aug. 17.

Pursuant to Secure Communities, fingerprints taken during the normal arrest-and-booking process are checked against the FBI and Department of Homeland Security databases. Both ICE and local law enforcement agencies are notified if the fingerprints identify the person as an unauthorized or out-of-status immigrant or an authorized immigrant who has previously committed a crime that makes him or her deportable. ICE evaluates the case to determine if it will issue a detainer against the jailed individual.

Advocates for just treatment of immigrants have expressed legitimate concerns about the Secure Communities initiative. For one thing, individuals are screened upon arrest and booking, before they have been convicted of or even charged with a crime. There also are concerns about the accuracy of data bases, about costs and prioritization of expenditures, about the ambiguity of whether or not local communities can decline or limit their participation; and about the fact the program is being rapidly expanded even though ICE has yet to promulgate regulations.

Perhaps an even more compelling concern is the effect this and other local enforcement attempts will have on community-policing endeavors, which rely so much on trust, cooperation and communication. These are apt to be weakened when local law enforcement is linked to ICE and deportation.

And finally….

Remember Tariq Aziz?

Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq and toppling of Saddam Hussein, he was regularly the televised spokesman for that regime, described as its "international face" by the Associated Press. A Catholic, he was the only Christian among Saddam’s closest group. After hiding for a while, he surrendered to the U.S. and was incarcerated. In July of this year his custody was transferred to Iraq’s government.

The latest news involving Tariq Aziz is that on Oct. 26 he was sentenced to death by hanging. Consistent with its international position, the Holy See has urged that the death penalty not be imposed; and may seek intervention through diplomatic channels.