Judge blocks key parts of Arizona immigration law

PHOENIX — A federal judge Wednesday blocked the most controversial parts of Arizona's immigration law from going into effect, a ruling that at least temporarily squashes a state policy that had inflamed a national debate over immigration.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton issued a preliminary injunction against key sections of the law, scheduled to take effect Thursday, that called for police officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws and required immigrants to prove that they were authorized to be in the country or risk state charges. She issued the injunction in response to a legal challenge brought by the Obama administration.

A spokesman for Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican who signed the law and has campaigned on it for election to a full term, said Wednesday that the governor would appeal the injunction Thursday to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco and ask for a speedy review. Legal experts predicted the case could end up before the Supreme Court.

The law, designed to seek and deport illegal immigrants in a state that is the principal gateway for illegal border crossers, had provoked intense debate, drawing support in several polls but generating boycotts of the state by major civil-rights groups and several cities and towns, including Seattle.

The law renewed calls for an overhaul of federal immigration law and led to repeated rebukes of it from President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder, who maintained that immigration policy is under the purview of the federal government.

The Mexican government, joined by seven other Latin American nations, supported one of the suits against the law; attorneys general of several states backed Arizona.

The ruling came four days before 1,200 National Guard members were scheduled to report to the U.S.-Mexico border to assist federal and local law-enforcement agencies there, part of the Obama administration's response to growing anxiety over the border and immigration.

Bolton, appointed to the bench by President Clinton, did allow some, less debated provisions of the law to go into effect, including one that bans cities from refusing to cooperate with federal immigration agents.

But she largely sided with arguments in a suit by the Obama administration that the law, rather than closely hewing to existing federal statutes, as supporters have claimed, interferes with long-standing federal authority over immigration and could lead to harassment of citizens and legal immigrants.

"There is a substantial likelihood that officers will wrongfully arrest legal resident aliens," she wrote. "By enforcing this statute, Arizona would impose," she said, citing a previous Supreme Court case, a " 'distinct, unusual and extraordinary' burden on legal resident aliens that only the federal government has the authority to impose."

The judge's decision was not her final word. In granting the injunction, she simply indicated the Justice Department was likely, but not certain, to prevail on those points at a later trial. She made no ruling on six other suits that challenged the law.

Bolton's ruling, issued as demonstrators both for and against the law gathered in Phoenix, and after hearings in three of the seven lawsuits against it, seemed more likely to prolong the debate rather than settle matters.

"This fight is far from over," said Brewer, whose lawyers had argued that Congress granted states the power to enforce immigration law particularly when, in their view, the federal government fell short. "In fact," she added, "it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens."

State Sen. Russell Pearce, a Republican and chief sponsor of the law, said in a statement that he was confident that the sections blocked by Bolton would survive on appeal, noting the state's previous victories in court on other statutes designed to give it a larger role in immigration enforcement.

"The courts have made it clear states have the inherent power to enforce the laws of this country," he said.

But Gabriel Chin, a professor at the University of Arizona School of Law who has studied the law, called the ruling "a nearly complete victory for the position of the United States."

He noted that the judge ruled in the federal government's favor on most of the points it challenged.

Aside from stopping the requirement that police initiate immigration checks, the judge also blocked provisions that allowed the police to hold anyone arrested for any crime until his immigration status was determined.

She also said Arizona could not make it a state crime for noncitizens to be in the state without proper documents, nor could it allow police to make arrests without warrants if officers believed the offense would lead to deportation. She said there was a "substantial likelihood" of wrongful arrests.

The parts of the law she did allow were not challenged by the Justice Department but do figure in some of the other lawsuits. They include forbidding "sanctuary city" policies by allowing residents to sue local authorities if they adopt policies restricting cooperation with the federal government in immigration enforcement.

She also let stand a provision aimed at day laborers, who are mostly Latin American immigrants, by making it a crime to stop a vehicle in traffic or block traffic to hire someone off the street.

But she blocked a provision that barred illegal immigrants from soliciting work in public places.