Feds to claim pre-emption in fight against AZ immigration-enforcement law; Update: Suit makes no claim of discrimination

posted at 1:36 pm on July 6, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

The Department of Justice will file a lawsuit this week, perhaps as early as today, against Arizona to block its new immigration-enforcement law.  They plan to use the weakest argument possible, that of pre-emption, which amounts to a surrender on the grounds that the Obama administration has claimed in the previous three months of debate:

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

The lawsuit, which three sources said could be filed as early as Tuesday, will invoke for its main argument the legal doctrine of “preemption,” which is based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause and says that federal law trumps state statutes. Justice Department officials believe that enforcing immigration laws is a federal responsibility, the sources said. …

The preemption doctrine has been established in Supreme Court decisions, and some legal experts have said such a federal argument likely would persuade a judge to declare the law unconstitutional.

But lawyers who helped draft the Arizona legislation have expressed doubt that a preemption argument would prevail.

Why might they be skeptical of this approach?  The argument relies on a position that claims that the federal government is the only sovereign with jurisdiction to enforce immigration laws.  They may need to explain, then, the DoJ effort to train state and local law enforcement on immigration law and enforcement.  The program, called Basic Immigration Enforcement Training (BIET), offers the following training:

A rising immigrant population in the U.S. has led to a dramatic increase in local, state, and tribal law enforcement encounters with both legal and illegal immigrants during routine police duties. As immigration continues to affect interior communities, there is an increasing demand for law enforcement officers to have a working knowledge of immigration law and policy.

BIET is a highly interactive, self-paced multimedia training program that addresses the immigration knowledge requirements of local, state, and tribal law enforcement officers. BIET addresses a wide range of topics including:

  • False identification
  • Identifying valid identification documents
  • Consular notification
  • Diplomatic immunity
  • Nonimmigrant visas
  • Immigrant and nonimmigrant status
  • Law Enforcement Support Center resources

BIET was developed by Cameron University and Advanced Systems Technology, Inc. with funding received from the U.S. Department of Justice COPS Office. The pilot program was available for free to the first 500 officers from law enforcement departments.

It seems rather clear that the DoJ intended to get state and local law enforcement involved in immigration efforts.  Arizona’s law doesn’t set up the state as an adjudicator of the complaints, but merely requires police to check status and refer suspects to ICE when circumstances warrant.  It doesn’t violate federal prerogative at all, but instead forces the federal government to act responsibly to enforce the law.

Besides, this issue of pre-emption works the other direction.  Does this mean that state and local police have no jurisdiction to enforce federal drug laws if they don’t violate state or local law?  Terrorism?  Wire fraud?  If a court rules that referrals to federal agencies from state and local law enforcement are unconstitutional on the basis of pre-emption, it will make the Gorelick Wall look like a curb.

Furthermore, this is weak tea compared to the Obama administration’s rhetoric on the subject.  They have spent the last three months declaring this unconstitutional on the basis of discrimination.  If that were true, the government would have made that its primary argument.  The fact that they’re going with pre-emption means that they’re conceding that the discrimination argument never held water — and that their accusations of bigotry against Arizonans were nothing more than demagoguery.

Update: Legal Insurrection has the complaint, which was filed today.

Update II: Jake Tapper delivers my told-you-so:

The court filing states that Arizona law is pre-empted by federal law and therefore violates the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The filing makes no assertion that the law is discriminatory or risks being applied in a discriminatory fashion, as the president and other officials said they feared would be the case. Interestingly, this suit makes no civil rights charges against the Arizona law.

If there is no civil-rights violation, then why is Obama suing over it?  I got this earlier by e-mail from HA reader Mark W:

I’ve always thought that the Justice Department might take the preemption route to try and get the law declared unconstitutional, however I’m not talk about conflict preemption, but field preemption. This sub-species of the Supremacy Clause states that even without a conflict between state and federal law, or without an express declaration by Congress that the federal law will be supreme, the state law may be overwritten if the federal regulatory scheme is so pervasive as to “occupy the field” of the area of law in question, in this case, immigration law. Basically the court looks at the federal law and tries to determine if Congress’ intent was to not have the federal law supplemented by state law. There is a whole range of tests that determine whether Congress has invoked field preemption. I’d be happy to get out my Con. Law notes and give a more comprehensive analysis if you like, but the moral of the story is: don’t discount this suit too quickly, Ed. It could still have teeth, even with the BIET argument.

But in this case, the state isn’t setting itself up as a higher jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction; it doesn’t supplant anything.  The state will not try these cases.  All cases of suspected illegal immigration will get referred to the feds.  It would be akin to saying that it’s unconstitutional for local police to respond to a bank robbery in progress because robbing an FDIC-insured bank is a federal crime.  Mark isn’t defending the lawsuit, I should emphasize, but merely providing the administration’s argument for it — and thereby demonstrating how weak it is.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

What a weanie, he knows he can’t win, this is just a publicity stunt, that is what this has finally gotten to, a cheap publicity stunt in an attempt to save face.
He is such a fool…

right2bright on July 6, 2010 at 8:36 PM

But if you are illegal, you get to drive off with no detention and no fine? What about no registration or insurance?

barnone on July 6, 2010 at 1:49 PM

That’s where this lawsuit falls so short…the feds have given many “fed” powers to the state…a bank robbery is a federal law, as is counterfeiting, but local police can make arrests.
The statutes are full of areas where the feds have relinquished their “rights” and given them to the states. The feds can’t be everywhere, every time.
This is a foolish stunt, with absolutely no chance of winning.
Some constitutional lawyer we have as a president, he must have fallen asleep during this class…

right2bright on July 6, 2010 at 8:41 PM

The main racist here is Obama.

proconstitution on July 6, 2010 at 8:46 PM

The Justice Department has decided to file suit against Arizona on the grounds that the state’s new immigration law illegally intrudes on federal prerogatives, law enforcement sources said Monday.

Yet the Obama admin has no problem with intruding on state/individual rights with Obamacare…

TN Mom on July 6, 2010 at 8:48 PM

their accusations of bigotry against Arizonans were nothing more than demagoguery

The Obama DOJ just threw the SEIU, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Al Sharpton, Calderone, and all the other people screaming ‘racism’ under the bus! Their new slogan: Let’s boycott Arizona for trying to do the job the feds refuse to do. Bahahahahaha!

TN Mom on July 6, 2010 at 9:08 PM

May I have ten thousand marbles, please ?

teacherman on July 6, 2010 at 9:42 PM

Has anyone here read the Constitution? It says, “Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, …”. “Naturalization” is the process by which you become a citizen. The Constitution says nothing about immigration. The Constitution does not forbid the states to set rules for immigration. The Constitution does not forbid the several states to check out who comes in from foreign lands.

We are sovereign states. The Union is there to do those things and only those things specifically granted power for in the Constitution. The several states are not subject to arbitrary dictates of the Union.

Woody

woodcdi on July 6, 2010 at 9:42 PM

It is 2010s version of Title 9…….all peeples is our peeples.

Limerick on July 6, 2010 at 9:56 PM

Also, would such a ruling potentially void similar laws in states like California that have been on the books for years?

crosspatch on July 6, 2010 at 2:20 PM

The California law you guys keep referring to has already been found by a Court to be preempted by federal law. Of course, that doesn’t bode well for your side.

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Hmmmm.

Proud Rino on July 6, 2010 at 11:02 PM

U.S. vs Arizona

I wonder how Arizona-SB 1070 “…critically undermines U.S. foreign policy objectives…”

How? That is just nuts!

C’mon you Open Borders types! How does Arizona SB1070 “…critically undermine U.S. foreign policy objectives…?”

shorebird on July 6, 2010 at 11:12 PM

Ed,

I had no idea what you were talking about with the “BIET” crack until I clicked and read down the page.

Ryan Anthony on July 6, 2010 at 11:22 PM

The California law you guys keep referring to has already been found by a Court to be preempted by federal law. Of course, that doesn’t bode well for your side.

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Considering it never went beyond district court (remember, that the CA gov’t filed the suit to stop 187), and that congress has since passed legislation expressly delegating authority to enforce federal immigration codes to the states, and that AZ possesses 7 MOA’s articulating this authority, field preemption is not something I would hang my hat on.

Fighton03 on July 6, 2010 at 11:42 PM

HuntingTexas on July 6, 2010 at 1:44 PM
PM

A start might be stop calling them “sanctuary cities” and start calling them what they are “Slave Hubs” for the modern “Slave Trade”.

If you support illegal immigration you are enabling the Slave Trade. Don’t care about “intentions” the fact is your no better than those who went to Africa and brought back Slaves.

If you hire illegal immigrates you are the modern equivalent of a plantation owner, a Slave owner.

Lets call things what they are and deal with it.

DSchoen on July 7, 2010 at 12:12 AM

Of course, that doesn’t bode well for your side.

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Bodes worse for the men-in-black crossing the Red River. The Yankees can’t stomach fighting monsters. Let’s see how they fight neighbors.

Limerick on July 7, 2010 at 12:13 AM

The California law you guys keep referring to has already been found by a Court to be preempted by federal law. Of course, that doesn’t bode well for your side.

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM

Your “interpretation” of established law shows that you have a lot to learn before you become a “lawyer”.

Just curious, why are you training to be a lawyer? The money?

Del Dolemonte on July 7, 2010 at 12:31 AM

How can Sheriff Joe arrange a consular visit for the illegals if he can’t find out that they’re illegal?

PKO Strany on July 7, 2010 at 12:53 AM

But in this case, the state isn’t setting itself up as a higher jurisdiction, or any jurisdiction; it doesn’t supplant anything. The state will not try these cases.

That is incorrect Ed, the state will be trying these cases. They will be arrested for criminal trespass, a misdemeanor, and in some instances it could be classified as a felony charge.

Once they fulfill their sentence on the criminal trespass charge, then would they be turned over to federal authorities.

ButterflyDragon on July 7, 2010 at 1:20 AM

When the drafters revised the law they were in effect conceding that the discrimination-based criticisms of the law held water then, right?

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 2:06 PM

I suppose they couldn’t have just been trying to preempt weasels from making false accusations?

Of course, after changing the language to preempt exactly the kind of argument you’re making, you want to cite that change in language as proof that the law was discriminatory until they changed it.

No dice. People reword things all the time to avoid giving a false impression. That’s not a proof of ill intent.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM

No dice. People reword things all the time to avoid giving a false impression. That’s not a proof of ill intent.

There Goes The Neighborhood on July 7, 2010 at 2:17 AM

And there was no ill intent. They had to placate idiots like Crr.

CWforFreedom on July 7, 2010 at 7:30 AM

Border security has always been the purview of the Feds, so it makes sense that this is the Federal objection.

What’s unfortunate is that is not how the administration has painted this lawsuit.

They are going to be guilty of misleading people.

AnninCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM

“Washington just doesn’t get it.” SB1070 proves that Arizonans are fed up and tired of waiting for the federal government to address this vitally important issue, and are tired of grand standing and waiting for real help from Washington while others are only concerned in scoring political points. A lawsuit and boycotts will NOT solve this issue. This Justice Department’s lawsuit is wrong. This administration should exert the necessary effort to SECURE THE BORDER.

That’s from Rahm’s chosen Arizona Democrat Congressman Harry Mitchell.

maverick muse on July 7, 2010 at 8:21 AM

I’m not sure just what planet obama and company secretly hail from, but it’s not this one. Will someone please tell me how he and his can be so totally out of touch with the American people(including apparently many Hispanics)and either not notice or refuse to notice. Basic tenet: You do not sue your own people. Most especially when there is another more sensible alternative. For the billionth time, what is wrong with this man!!!

jeanie on July 7, 2010 at 8:27 AM

Border security has always been the purview of the Feds, so it makes sense that this is the Federal objection.

What’s unfortunate is that is not how the administration has painted this lawsuit.

They are going to be guilty of misleading people.

AnninCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM

Way to express a thought. What do you mean here? Are you for this challenge to the AZ law? Against it? Are you for th AZ law? Against it? Do you believe state’s should be able to enforce federal laws? If not, why not?

If you have nothing to say, why do you insist on posting?

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 8:39 AM

If immigration law is “pre-empted” and local law enforcement has no authority to enforce such laws, then the same has to be true for such things as federal drug laws, banking laws, employment laws, etc. In which case, I suggest that local agencies and law enforcement in every state stop enforcing any and all federal laws. Let the feds enforce such laws on their own. I would suggest that this should include any cooperation with federal authorities by locals/state agencies.

Or, please tell me how such things are differnt. Crr6? You seem to be a real legal “scholar”, why don’t you explain.

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 8:42 AM

AnninCA on July 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM

State Militias have always been the Constitutional purview of every State’s Govenor.

Gov. Brewer and the Arizona Legislature need to organize the Arizona State Militia like California did.

The California State Military Reserve (CSMR) is the State Defense Force of California authorized by United States Code (32 USC 109c) and the California Military and Veteran’s Code (CM&VC 550).

The mission of the California State Military Reserve, as recognized in National Guard Regulation 10-4, is to provide an adequately trained and organized State military reserve force under the exclusive control of the Governor. The CSMR is meant to be capable of accomplishing those State emergency responsibilities normally assigned to the National Guard, when the Guard is federalized or otherwise not available.

In addition, the CSMR performs such military duties as the Governor directs within the parameters of applicable federal and state law. Typically those additional military duties include assisting civil authorities during domestic emergencies and assisting in the mobilization and demobilization process of the National Guard.

The CSMR is a volunteer operational force upon which the California National Guard depends. Its members are subject to call to state active duty by the Governor of the State of California.

maverick muse on July 7, 2010 at 9:21 AM

I’m not sure just what planet obama and company secretly hail from, but it’s not this one.

Who caught Michael Savage on last night’s NASA discussion?

NASA is to devote its resources to implement Obama’s prime directive to build up Muslim Malasia’s scientific space program.

maverick muse on July 7, 2010 at 9:26 AM

NASA is to devote its resources to implement Obama’s prime directive to build up Muslim Malasia’s scientific space program.

maverick muse on July 7, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Which of course, helps give the muslim world much scientific knowledge of delivery systems that could reach the U.S.

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 10:56 AM

Muslims already have the T=0 part down pretty good. As far as amnesty goes on the topic, if the amnesty is granted I say charge the Obama Regime with election fraud, becuase thats why he wants it.

johnnyU on July 7, 2010 at 11:13 AM

Way to express a thought. What do you mean here? Are you for this challenge to the AZ law? Against it? Are you for th AZ law? Against it? Do you believe state’s should be able to enforce federal laws? If not, why not?

If you have nothing to say, why do you insist on posting?

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 8:39 AM

I completely agree with AZ. And I post my own thoughts. Why don’t you just worry about yours.

AnninCA on July 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM

If immigration law is “pre-empted” and local law enforcement has no authority to enforce such laws,

I stopped reading here because this is clearly wrong. States can always enforce federal laws to the extent they’re authorized to do so by federal law. Indeed, current federal immigration law already explicitly carves out a place for some state enforcement.

Buuut states can’t come up with their own enforcement schemes or enforce federal law when doing so is inconsistent with Congressional intent. Hope that clears up your confusion a bit.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

I stopped reading here because this is clearly wrong. States can always enforce federal laws to the extent they’re authorized to do so by federal law. Indeed, current federal immigration law already explicitly carves out a place for some state enforcement.

Buuut states can’t come up with their own enforcement schemes or enforce federal law when doing so is inconsistent with Congressional intent. Hope that clears up your confusion a bit.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

And just what is congressional intent? The current laws are very clear and are not being enforced by the federal government. Since the actual enforcement of laws has nothing to do with Congress, how is one to divine “congressional intent” when talking about enforcement of the law?

ButterflyDragon on July 7, 2010 at 12:23 PM

The only way the DoJ can win this is if they argue that the state law is too restrictive because it rules out any profiling based on race. They’d have to claim the state law over runs the federal one by weakening it, making enforcement harder and ineffective.
Sure this would be an odd stance for Obama to take but I really don’t see him winning the case any other way.

LeeSeneca on July 7, 2010 at 12:40 PM

As a legal American citizen you must show ID when:

1. Pulled over by the police.
2. Making purchases on my department store credit card.
3. When you show up for a doctor’s appointment.
4. When filling out a credit card or loan application.
5. When applying for or renewing a driver’s license or passport.
6. When applying for any kind of insurance.
7. When filling out college applications.
8. When donating blood.
9. When obtaining certain prescription drugs.
10. When making some debit purchases, especially
if you’re out of state.
11. When collecting a boarding pass for airline or train travel.

There must be more instances, but the point is that citizens of the USA are required to prove who they are nearly every day!

Why should people in this country illegally, be exempt?

Why shouldn’t our borders be guarded as closely as any other country’s are?

Go ARIZONA !!!

Schadenfreude on July 7, 2010 at 1:20 PM

I stopped reading here because this is clearly wrong. States can always enforce federal laws to the extent they’re authorized to do so by federal law. Indeed, current federal immigration law already explicitly carves out a place for some state enforcement.

Buuut states can’t come up with their own enforcement schemes or enforce federal law when doing so is inconsistent with Congressional intent. Hope that clears up your confusion a bit.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Gee, perhaps you should learn to read then. The AZ law mirrors federal law. So, what exactly is in the AZ law that is preempted such that it can’t be enforced? Please cite specifics rather than your normal blow-hard vague assertions backed up by your reference to your own authority b/c you are in law school.

Or, if your argument is that state’s aren’t allowed to enforce federal law when the feds don’t want the law enforced, find me some precedence.

You’ve been going to law school for about, what, 5 years now? haven’t you learned anything? It does not appear that you have.

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM

I completely agree with AZ. And I post my own thoughts. Why don’t you just worry about yours.

AnninCA on July 7, 2010 at 11:14 AM

If you don’t want people commenting on how insane / inane your comments regularly are, not to mention dishonest or ignorant, you shouldn’t post. Much like in the health care debate, you state you support the AZ law here in this thread, but later in another thread I would not be surprised to see you claim something totally different.

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 3:09 PM


Gee, perhaps you should learn to read then. The AZ law mirrors federal law. So, what exactly is in the AZ law that is preempted such that it can’t be enforced?

If I remember, an early version of the bill was broader than federal law, because it empowered state LEO’s to arrest illegal immigrants even if hadn’t been convicted of a prior felony, whereas under federal law, state LEO’s could only arrest an illegal immigrant if they had been convicted of a separate felony offense. I’m pretty sure that was fixed or taken out though, so it may not be true anymore. The Arizona law has been tweaked so many times (because it sucks) that it’s hard to keep track of the changes.

Even if the actual texts of the statutes are identical though, the state law can be preempted by federal law to the extent it conflicts with the enforcement or administration of federal law, or to the extent it burdens federal agents (for example, by forcing federal officials to process and expel illegal immigrants that the state LEO’s arrest).

Really though, if you’d been following the issue at all on any sort of level beyond reading HA blog posts you’d know all of this already. You can start by reading the complaint that the DoJ filed yesterday. It’s not my job to hold your hand.
You’ve been going to law school for about, what, 5 years now?

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM

lol. 1 year. And law school is only 3 years anyway.

Now go read up.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 4:55 PM

Wow, format fail. Let’s try that again…

Gee, perhaps you should learn to read then. The AZ law mirrors federal law. So, what exactly is in the AZ law that is preempted such that it can’t be enforced?

If I remember, an early version of the bill was broader than federal law, because it empowered state LEO’s to arrest illegal immigrants even if hadn’t been convicted of a prior felony, whereas under federal law, state LEO’s could only arrest an illegal immigrant if they had been convicted of a previous, separate felony offense. I’m pretty sure that was fixed or taken out though, so it may not be true anymore. The Arizona law has been tweaked so many times (because it sucks) that it’s hard to keep track of the changes.

Still, even if the actual texts of the statutes are identical, the state law can be preempted by federal law to the extent it conflicts with the enforcement or administration of federal law, or to the extent it burdens federal agents (for example, by forcing federal officials to process and expel illegal immigrants that the state LEO’s arrest).

Really though, if you’d been following the issue at all on any sort of level beyond reading HA blog posts you’d know all of this already. You can start by reading the complaint that the DoJ filed yesterday. It’s not my job to hold your hand.

You’ve been going to law school for about, what, 5 years now?

Monkeytoe on July 7, 2010 at 3:06 PM

lol. 1 year. And law school is only 3 years anyway.
Now go read up.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Still, even if the actual texts of the statutes are identical, the state law can be preempted by federal law to the extent it conflicts with the enforcement or administration of federal law,

Assume that is true, apparently it is not relevant in this case as the AZ law was crafted specifically to avoid that trap

or to the extent it burdens federal agents (for example, by forcing federal officials to process and expel illegal immigrants that the state LEO’s arrest).

That is the crux of the case being argued by the DOJ. An interesting 10th amendment question — can a state write a law to “burden” the Feds to enforce the federal law that they are supposed to enforce? Since the USA is a “union” of “these united states” — do the states have the right to force the federal union to enforce federal laws? I suggest that if the answer is no — then we approach civil war again.

SunSword on July 7, 2010 at 6:54 PM

lol. 1 year. And law school is only 3 years anyway.
Now go read up.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

My bet is that it will take you a minimum of 5.

CWforFreedom on July 7, 2010 at 7:14 PM

Crr- you seriously have issues. Seek help. I sense a ton of insecurity.

Now go read up.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 4:57 PM

Um, no.

crr6 on July 6, 2010 at 2:06 PM

You’re having a rough night.

crr6 on April 24, 2010 at 7:39 PM

Ok then.

crr6 on May 5, 2010 at 9:26 AM

Pretty much what you’d expect from America’s sh*ttiest state.

crr6 on April 28, 2010 at 11:02 PM

Oh snaps!

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:26 PM

haha you’re a moron.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:29 PM

Yeah I think everyone got the point of that post except for you. Let it sit for a little. Just let it sit.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 9:38 PM

That doesn’t bode well for you little buddy.

crr6 on May 11, 2010 at 10:14 PM

I’m sure people of all races, creeds and cultures have humiliated you.

crr6 on April 12, 2010 at 9:52 PM

C

areful. I might make you apologize again.

crr6 on April 12, 2010 at 10:28 PM

Jamson64 on July 7, 2010 at 7:31 PM

That is the crux of the case being argued by the DOJ. An interesting 10th amendment question — can a state write a law to “burden” the Feds to enforce the federal law that they are supposed to enforce?
SunSword on July 7, 2010 at 6:54 PM

You’re simplifying the question. If the feds want to prioritize their enforcement in a certain way (that is, if they want to utilize their finite resources a certain way) they should be able to do so.

For example, the feds prioritize finding and deporting illegal immigrants who are potential national security risks. Arizona screws with that if they force the feds to divert resources to processing and expelling a bunch of harmless migrant workers who were arrested outside Home Depot.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 7:33 PM

I’m sure people of all races, creeds and cultures have humiliated you.

crr6 on April 12, 2010 at 9:52 PM

Jamson64 on July 7, 2010 at 7:31 PM

haha I forgot about that post. Thanks for digging it up.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 7:34 PM

You’re simplifying the question. If the feds want to prioritize their enforcement in a certain way (that is, if they want to utilize their finite resources a certain way) they should be able to do so.

crr6 on July 7, 2010 at 7:33 PM

The federales aren’t prioritizing dick, buddy. They are choosing to ignore federal law altogether. If you are going to sit there in your lawyerly robes and argue that is the federal government’s prerogative, don’t pretend otherwise. Most of here wouldn’t buy that argument for a single thin red cent.

gryphon202 on July 7, 2010 at 9:41 PM

It seems that Rhode Island has done pretty much the same as Arizona, by executive order.
It seems that Rhode Island was previously sued … unsuccessfully.
Estrada v. State of Rhode Island, No. 09-1149

J_Crater on July 8, 2010 at 12:03 PM

I guess 12 year olds can now buy beer and cigs in AZ, can’t ask for ID.

nwpammy on July 28, 2010 at 2:32 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3