A Supreme test of Arizona’s immigration law

What happened

The Supreme Court signaled this week that it might rule Arizona’s tough immigration law constitutional, with several justices saying that the federal government’s inaction has opened the door to states defending their own borders. The justices heard oral arguments on several parts of the state’s 2010 law, which the Obama administration and lower courts had deemed an unconstitutional infringement on the federal government’s authority. The most controversial provision gives police in Arizona the power to demand identification from anyone they suspect of being in the U.S. illegally—a mandate critics say would lead to racial profiling. But even liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor seemed unimpressed by the federal government’s argument, saying that it was “not selling very well” among her fellow justices.

Arizona’s lawyers argued before the court that state and local police should be empowered to enforce federal policies when federal authorities fail to act. Justice Anthony Kennedy, frequently the deciding vote on the court, seemed to agree, speaking of the “social and economic disruption” caused by untamed illegal immigration. Only eight justices heard oral arguments this week, as Justice Elena Kagan, who worked on the case as U.S. solicitor general, has recused herself. The court’s ruling will have implications outside Arizona. Several states, including Georgia, Alabama, and South Carolina, have crafted similar immigration-enforcement laws, and others are poised to do the same.

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

What the editorials said

Arizona’s law does nothing more than instruct state police to enforce existing federal laws, said The Wall Street Journal. If the White House doesn’t like those laws, it should get Congress to reform them, rather than trying to use the Supreme Court to “create a new immigration policy by fiat.” If Obama and Congress had done their jobs, said The Arizona Republic, state legislatures wouldn’t have felt a need to step into the breach. Immigration policy shouldn’t have to be “patched together by frustrated states, only to be accepted or rejected by the courts.” A “coherent, enforceable” federal immigration law is urgently required.

But Arizona’s immigration law is no replacement, said The New York Times. It goes “far beyond federal law” and violates civil rights. Cops are authorized to demand papers from anyone they suspect is illegal—which in practice means anyone looking Hispanic or wearing workman’s clothes. If the court upholds this law, said The Washington Post, states would get “the green light to craft and enforce their own laws,” creating a “legislative hodgepodge” that would stifle Congress’s ability to regulate immigration.

What the commentators said

Arizona has every right to secure its borders, since the Obama administration won’t, said Larry Dever, sheriff of Cochise County, Ariz., in TheHill.com. The president’s decision to sue our state instead of welcoming our help is “emblematic of an administration that is simply out of touch” with ordinary Americans. Polls show that 62 percent of Americans want Arizona’s law upheld. But instead of recognizing the public will, Obama has “worked tirelessly’’ to promote amnesty for illegal immigrants, said Jon Feere in USNews.com. His White House would prefer to suck up to Hispanic voters rather than protect American citizens.

That’s just not true, said David Horsey in the Los Angeles Times. In the past five years, the number of undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. has actually shrunk by over a million, and net migration from Mexico has hit zero—no doubt partly because of the “beefed-up border enforcement” and increase in deportations ordered by the Obama administration. Whatever decision the justices make, “illegal immigration may be a problem that is slowly but steadily going south.”

That’s why it might be best if the Supreme Court does uphold Arizona’s law, said Peter J. Spiro in The New York Times. Laws of this type are so poorly constructed that, “left to their own devices, they will die a natural death.” Farms across Arizona, Alabama, and Georgia are already suffering because immigrant labor has vanished. Foreign companies are withdrawing investment from these states, fearing that their lawful immigrant executives will be arrested for not carrying their papers around. If the Supreme Court doesn’t kill this flawed law, it will surely “wither away on its own.”