Arguments were heard Wednesday in the case of Arizona v U.S., the case that questions the legality of four provisions of Arizona’s immigration law, SB 1070. Arizona, enacting a new law to combat illegal immigrants crossing from Mexico, has overstepped their rights. Immigration is a federal issue, according to the U.S. But that apparently wasn’t quite as convincing of an argument as the federal government might have hoped, reports CNN.
“What does sovereignty mean if it foes not include the ability to defend your borders?” questioned Justice Antonin Scalia.
Sotomayor, a liberal and the first Latina judge on the Court, also told the federal lawyer that some parts of his arguments were “not selling very well.”
The four provisions being debated are:
- A provision that requires police officers to check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.
- A provision authorizing police to arrest immigrants without warrant where "probable cause" exists that they committed any public offense.
- A section making it a state crime for "unauthorized immigrants" to fail to carry registration papers and other government identification.
- Restriction against those not authorized for employment in the United States to apply, solicit or perform work.
After the arguments, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer stated that the court’s decision might not be known for weeks, but that she is “filled with optimism-- the kind that comes with knowing that Arizona's cause is just and its course is true."
A decision probably won’t be given until late June, before the justices recess for the summer.
Read the 5 things you should know about the Act here, and let us know: do you think Arizona is in the right, or wrong, here? Could they win the case?