SCOTUS on a roll!

[MeeMie]

Arizona Immigration Comes to High Court


A controversial measure Arizona lawmakers passed to crack down on illegal immigration will now go before the Supreme Court, the justices announced Monday, but this is a different law from the one recently passed--and yet to go into effect--that has generated so much attention.

The Court's decision to take the case places a harsh spotlight on Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano for an apparent reversal on her views of how best to address immigration problems. It also puts added focus on Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan and her role as Solicitor General in asking the high court to take the case.

The 2007 Arizona law now under review was an effort by state lawmakers to crack down on companies that hire illegal workers. The law sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal employees. It also forces employers to participate in the national E-Verify database that tracks employment eligibility.

Critics contend the Legal Arizona Workers Act usurps the authority of the federal government which has traditionally enforced immigration laws.

"Business, labor, and civil rights organizations, which only rarely see eye to eye, joined in challenging the statute below; support the petition here; and individually and collectively recognize the fundamental need for review and clarification of the law by this Court," U.S. Chamber of Commerce lawyer Carter Phillips wrote to the Supreme Court asking the justices to take the case and ultimately overturn the law.

Phillips said Arizona's effort is part of a "crazy-quilt of state and local immigration statutes" that give rise to uncertainty for employers; many of whom have operations in multiple states.

Arizona argues that concern is unwarranted because its law works in concert with federal measures. "Although Congress prohibited the federal government from requiring employers throughout the country to use E-Verify, it did not prohibit state policymakers from requiring employers within their jurisdiction to use this federal program," Arizona Solicitor General Mary O'Grady told the Court asking the justices to deny review.

The case comes from the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which upheld the law. A unanimous three-judge panel ruled "the Act does not attempt to define who is eligible or ineligible to work under our immigration laws. It is premised on enforcement of federal standards as embodied in federal immigration law."

After many months of consideration, the Obama Administration drafted a brief to the Court asking the justices to resolve the apparent conflict between state and federal enforcement of immigration laws but ignore the dispute over the E-Verify requirement.

The government's position puts Napolitano in the crosshairs of the controversy. The Obama Administration's brief to the high court comes from the Solicitor General's office but since Napolitano's agency is largely responsible for immigration policy the brief effectively represents her view that federal law should trump the state statute.

If that is in fact Napolitano's belief, it is a major reversal from three years ago when as Arizona's governor she signed the bill into law. "t is now abundantly clear that Congress finds itself incapable of coping with the comprehensive immigration reforms our country needs," Napolitano said at the time explaining her reasons for endorsing the measure.

Monday's announcement will also impact Kagan even though her name does not appear on the brief (Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal is listed as counsel of record) it is very likely she played a central role in its formulation. Her contribution to the government's brief is likely to come up during this week's confirmation hearing. If confirmed, there is a good chance Kagan will not participate in the case because of her involvement as Solicitor General.

The outcome of the case could serve as a bellwether for another controversial immigration measure passed by Arizona lawmakers earlier this year. That law is not set to go into effect until next month but has already generated several lawsuits and the promise of a challenge from the Obama Administration. The law's most vocal supporter, Arizona Governor Jan Brewer (R) says she'll fight the matter to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

 

[MeeMie]

"The law sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal employees. It also forces employers to participate in the national E-Verify database that tracks employment eligibility."

This, I believe, is the ultimate answer to enforcing illegal immigration laws.

If there is no work, they will leave.

It should be enforced at all levels ... from the migrant field workers to the nannies and gardeners in private households.

Let people who want to earn a living in the United States come here legally with a work visa ... just like all of the immigrants preceding them did.

 

[Ham Murabi]

"The law sanctions employers who knowingly hire illegal employees. It also forces employers to participate in the national E-Verify database that tracks employment eligibility."

This, I believe, is the ultimate answer to enforcing illegal immigration laws.

If there is no work, they will leave.

It should be enforced at all levels ... from the migrant field workers to the nannies and gardeners in private households.

Let people who want to earn a living in the United States come here legally with a work visa ... just like all of the immigrants preceding them did.

Napolitano did a helluva tap dance on this, vetoing previous bills because they didn't include punishment for businesses that hire illegals.
So when the Legislature passed what she asked for, she dithered for several days before finally figuring out there was no wiggle room, no excuse for a veto.

 

[MeeMie]

It was an opportune timeframe to answer both this and the threatened lawsuit (using the same argument that states cannot enforce federal law), showing today's opponents held a supporting viewpoint prior (Napolitano when Governor of Arizona), while causing the Kagan confirmation to recuse from the matter in the future.

 

[MeeMie]

Inevitably, SCOTUS will eventually decide this action:




Ex-DOJ Attorney: New Black Panther Cover-up

By: J. Christian Adams

On the day President Obama was elected, armed men wearing the black berets and jackboots of the New Black Panther Party were stationed at the entrance to a polling place in Philadelphia. They brandished a weapon and intimidated voters and poll watchers. After the election, the Justice Department brought a voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party and those armed thugs.

I and other Justice attorneys diligently pursued the case and obtained an entry of default after the defendants ignored the charges. Before a final judgment could be entered in May 2009, our superiors ordered us to dismiss the case.

The New Black Panther case was the simplest and most obvious violation of federal law I saw in my Justice Department career. Because of the corrupt nature of the dismissal, statements falsely characterizing the case and, most of all, indefensible orders for the career attorneys not to comply with lawful subpoenas investigating the dismissal, this month I resigned my position as a Department of Justice (DOJ) attorney.



The dismissal raises serious questions about the department's enforcement neutrality in upcoming midterm elections and the subsequent 2012 presidential election.

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights has opened an investigation into the dismissal and the DOJ's skewed enforcement priorities. Attorneys who brought the case are under subpoena to testify, but the department ordered us to ignore the subpoena, lawlessly placing us in an unacceptable legal limbo.

The assistant attorney general for civil rights, Tom Perez, has testified repeatedly that the "facts and law" did not support this case. That claim is false. If the actions in Philadelphia do not constitute voter intimidation, it is hard to imagine what would, short of an actual outbreak of violence at the polls. Let's all hope this administration has not invited that outcome through the corrupt dismissal.

Most corrupt of all, the lawyers who ordered the dismissal - Loretta King, the Obama-appointed acting head of the Civil Rights Division, and Steve Rosenbaum - did not even read the internal Justice Department memorandums supporting the case and investigation.

Just as Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. admitted that he did not read the Arizona immigration law before he condemned it, Mr. Rosenbaum admitted that he had not bothered to read the most important department documents detailing the investigative facts and applicable law in the New Black Panther case.

Christopher Coates, the former Voting Section chief, was so outraged at this dereliction of responsibility that he actually threw the memos at Mr. Rosenbaum in the meeting where they were discussing the dismissal of the case. The department subsequently removed all of Mr. Coates' responsibilities and sent him to South Carolina.

Mr. Perez also inaccurately testified to the House Judiciary Committee that federal "Rule 11" required the dismissal of the lawsuit. Lawyers know that Rule 11 is an ethical obligation to bring only meritorious claims, and such a charge by Mr. Perez effectively challenges the ethics and professionalism of the five attorneys who commenced the case. Yet the attorneys who brought the case were voting rights experts and would never pursue a frivolous matter. Their experience in election law far surpassed the experience of the officials who ordered the dismissal.



Some have called the actions in Philadelphia an isolated incident, not worthy of federal attention. To the contrary, the Black Panthers in October 2008 announced a nationwide deployment for the election.

We had indications that polling-place thugs were deployed elsewhere, not only in November 2008, but also during the Democratic primaries, where they targeted white Hillary Rodham Clinton supporters. In any event, the law clearly prohibits even isolated incidents of voter intimidation.



Others have falsely claimed that no voters were affected. Not only did the evidence rebut this claim, but the law does not require a successful effort to intimidate; it punishes even the attempt.



Most disturbing, the dismissal is part of a creeping lawlessness infusing our government institutions. Citizens would be shocked to learn about the open and pervasive hostility within the Justice Department to bringing civil rights cases against nonwhite defendants on behalf of white victims. Equal enforcement of justice is not a priority of this administration. Open contempt is voiced for these types of cases.

Some of my co-workers argued that the law should not be used against black wrongdoers because of the long history of slavery and segregation. Less charitable individuals called it "payback time." Incredibly, after the case was dismissed, instructions were given that no more cases against racial minorities like the Black Panther case would be brought by the Voting Section.

Refusing to enforce the law equally means some citizens are protected by the law while others are left to be victimized, depending on their race. Core American principles of equality before the law and freedom from racial discrimination are at risk. Hopefully, equal enforcement of the law is still a point of bipartisan, if not universal, agreement.

However, after my experience with the New Black Panther dismissal and the attitudes held by officials in the Civil Rights Division, I am beginning to fear the era of agreement over these core American principles has passed.

J. Christian Adams is a lawyer based in Virginia who served as a voting rights attorney at the Justice Department until this month.