[Guest post by DRJ]

The State of Arizona has appealed Judge Susan Bolton’s order enjoining sections of SB 1070 as immigration protesters surged in Phoenix:

“Arizona asked an appeals court Thursday to lift a judge’s order blocking most of the state’s immigration law as the city of Phoenix filled with protesters, including 50 who were arrested for confronting officers in riot gear.
***
Outside the state Capitol, hundreds of protesters began marching at dawn, gathering in front of the federal courthouse where Bolton issued her ruling on Wednesday. They marched on to the office of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, who has made a crackdown on illegal immigration one of his signature issues.”

Sheriff Arpaio told Fox News Neal Cavuto that most of the protesters were bussed in from California.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the four most controversial provisions of Arizona’s new immigration law:

“A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona immigration law, putting on hold the state’s attempt to enforce federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrests.”

Fox News has posted the court’s opinion.

I haven’t read the opinion so I can’t speak to its legal impact, but this strikes me as a decision that will politically energize conservatives between now and November. In addition, because this decision defangs the Arizona law, it makes it less likely there will be incidents that will give the Obama Administration grounds to sue Arizona for racial discrimination. Bottom line: Liberals won today but at what cost?

MORE: I’m adding the 4 provisions the Judge enjoined below the prompt.

(more…)

[Guest post by DRJ]

Legal Insurrection explains how the Obama Administration may nullify Arizona’s new immigration law:

“My expectation is that if the ruling goes as currently expected, and the status check provision alone survives, the Obama administration will refuse to take into custody anyone who is turned over by Arizona authorities who is not already wanted for a crime or who was not picked up in the course of committing another crime.

Call it nullification. Or better yet, willful disregard of the law.”

I think Jacobson is right, especially since this is similar to the Obama Administration’s response to the court’s decision regarding Obama’s offshore drilling moratorium. In the moratorium case, the Administration used federal executive powers to avoid the consequences of the adverse court decision. The Obama Administration could do the same here by refusing to take custody of anyone who wasn’t already wanted for a crime. In fact, federal authorities might even restrict immigration checks to persons charged with felony offenses.

Of course, it’s also possible the Administration will aggressively check immigration status to facilitate its planned lawsuit alleging Arizona’s law encourages discriminatory racial profiling. But I doubt it, because I don’t think the Obama Administration wants to provide statistics that might show how many illegal immigrants are suspected of committing crimes.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton held hearings today on two legal challenges to Arizona’s immigration law set to take effect July 29th, including a morning hearing involving claims by the ACLU and other groups and an afternoon hearing on a Justice Department claim. This Azcentral.com report (the online version of The Arizona Republic) indicates Judge Bolton provided some insight as to how she will rule:

“She didn’t issue a ruling, and it is unknown when she will. But the clock is ticking toward next Thursday, when the law goes into effect.

Bolton did make one thing clear: She has no intention of invalidating the entire law but is considering halting the enactment of a handful of its 14 sections.”

The article discusses portions of today’s arguments regarding SB1070 Section 2, which involves enforcement and arrest; Section 3, documentation; and Section 6, removable offenses.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Via Hot Air, the Obama Administration’s Department of Justice has determined there will be no criminal charges filed in connection with the U.S. Attorney firings during the Bush Administration. The report was delivered to House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI). This was his response:

“Conyers said in a statement that it was clear that Dannehy’s decision not to bring criminal charges “is not an exoneration of Bush officials in the U.S. Attorney matter as there is no dispute that these firings were totally improper and that misleading testimony was given to Congress in an effort to cover them up.”

He also pointed out that the probe “did not conclude that administration officials testified truthfully to Congress,” only that there was insufficient evidence to show they knowingly made false statement.

“I appreciate Attorney General Holder’s commitment to ensure that such conduct will not happen again,” Conyers said. “I am proud of the committee’s effort to bring the facts of this controversy to light, so that the American people themselves can judge the how Bush Justice Department abused our trust.”

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Like Mexico, seven Latin American nations have requested permission to file amicus briefs in a lawsuit opposing Arizona’s new immigration law:

“Bolivia, Colombia, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Paraguay and Peru filed separate, nearly identical motions to join Mexico’s legal brief supporting the lawsuit filed by U.S. civil rights and other advocacy groups.”

The law takes effect July 29. The lawsuit(s) will undoubtedly heat up on July 30th.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Following up on an earlier post, five Great Lakes states are suing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Chicago Water Reclamation District to keep Asian carp out of Lake Michigan.

I’m sure this is a big story in the Midwest. Like offshore drilling in the Gulf, it inflames passion and pits big money business interests against big money leisure interests.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The 5th Circuit upheld a federal court ruling in favor of Boy Samson and his parents over the Principled Principal:

“The 5-year-old boy’s parents, Kenney Arocha and Michelle Betenbaugh, argued their son, identified in court papers as A.A., has a constitutional right to wear a hairstyle that conforms to his American Indian religious beliefs. Arocha hasn’t cut his own hair in 11 years, believing the long braids have religious meaning. His son’s hair has never been cut.”

There are earlier posts on this story here and here.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Obama Administration’s DOJ has sent a letter to BP demanding that it provide advance notice of any significant sale of assets or cash transfers. BP indicated it would respond in due course.

Perhaps BP is wondering what legal authority the Administration has to make such a demand. Me, too.

– DRJ

[Guest post by DRJ]

Today the Obama Administration sued the State of Arizona, challenging the constitutionality of a recent law that targets illegal immigrants and arguing Arizona doesn’t have the right to pre-empt the federal government’s authority over immigration:

“The federal government’s legal case turns on the question of pre-emption — the notion that only Washington has the authority to set immigration policy. The Justice Department’s complaint says that Arizona’s statute, which Republican Gov. Jan Brewer signed in April, “is preempted by federal law and therefore violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution.”

Here are links to the Government’s Complaint and Brief. The Complaint sets forth three counts:

Violation of the Supremacy Clause;

Federal pre-emption; and

Violation of the Commerce Clause.

The Obama Administration requests a declaratory judgment that the Arizona law is null and a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement of the law. It also seeks costs against the State of Arizona.

To obtain a preliminary injunction, the federal government must meet each part of a four prong test: (1) a substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) a substantial threat that failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that the threatened injury outweighs any damage that the injunction may cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest. Just as Judge Feldman did in blocking Obama’s moratorium on offshore drilling, the Court in this Arizona case will balance the injury on the parties and consider the impact the injunction will have on “the public interest.”

Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection says the case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Neil V. Wake. Because the Obama Administration is seeking a preliminary injunction, Judge Wake will give us an early view of his stand on this case when he rules on whether there is a “substantial likelihood” the Obama Administration will prevail on the merits.

– DRJ

UPDATE: Arizona Governor Jan Brewer has sent out a request for donations to help Arizona defend its law.