Posts Tagged ‘Supreme Court of the United States’

Rights activists appeal Arizona “show-your-papers” ruling

Friday, September 14th, 2012

Civil and immigrant rights activists on Thursday lodged a last-ditch appeal seeking to block a controversial Arizona “show-your-papers” immigration provision upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court from taking effect.

The measure, which is part of a broader law to combat illegal immigration in the state bordering Mexico, requires police to check the immigration status of people they stop and suspect are in the country illegally.

A federal judge last week cleared the way for the provision to take effect, ruling that the law’s challengers had failed to show they were likely to prevail on the merits of the case after it was upheld by the nation’s top court in June.

The appeal, filed by plaintiffs including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, questioned the U.S. District Court’s interpretation of another federal appellate court’s ruling. Allowing the measure to take effect would cause “irreparable harm,” it said.

“We believe that the show-me-your-papers provision should remain suspended and are appealing the district court’s contrary ruling to the Ninth Circuit,” Omar Jadwat, senior attorney for the ACLU Immigrants’ Rights Project, said in a statement.

Arizona Republican Governor Jan Brewer, a major White House foe in the battle over illegal immigration, signed the state crackdown on illegal immigrants into law in April 2010, complaining that the federal government had failed to secure the state’s border with Mexico.

Matthew Benson, a spokesman for Brewer, said the appeal was “unfortunate but not unexpected, given that the groups aligned against SB 1070 are determined to do whatever possible to keep this duly-enacted and publicly supported law from taking effect.”

The administration of President Barack Obama challenged Arizona’s tough immigration law in court two years ago, saying the U.S. Constitution gives the federal government sole authority over immigration policy.

Opponents of the law also decried it as a mandate for the racial profiling of Hispanics, who make up nearly a third of Arizona’s population of 6.5 million people.

In the mixed ruling last Wednesday that allowed the provision to proceed, U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton also issued a preliminary injunction blocking a part of SB 1070, that made it a crime to transport, shield or harbor an illegal immigrant within Arizona’s borders.

The Supreme Court ruling was referred back to Bolton, who originally enjoined sections of the law before it took effect in July 2010.

The provision that was upheld in last week’s ruling could not be implemented until Bolton formally removes a block she placed on the law two years ago. That was not expected before September 15 at the earliest.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Wal-Mart wins appeal of immigrant janitor case

Friday, August 10th, 2012

Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has defeated an appeal by immigrant janitors who accused the world’s largest retailer in a lawsuit of unfair labor practices, encouraging illegal immigration and locking them in stores at night and on weekends.

A panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia upheld rulings in 2010 and 2011 by a New Jersey federal judge that blocked the workers from suing as a class and rejected their claims that Wal-Mart acquiesced in illegal work conditions.

Gilberto Garcia, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Thursday’s decision.

The plaintiffs in the nearly 9-year-old case, first brought in November 2003, included illegal immigrants who worked for contractors and subcontractors the Bentonville, Ark.-based retailer hired to clean its stores.

They accused Wal-Mart of trying to clean its stores “on the cheap” by paying contractors it knew hired illegal immigrants, who might be tolerant of lower pay and unfair work conditions. They added they were coerced to work by threats to report their immigration status to authorities.

The plaintiffs said that, while Wal-Mart was not their direct employer, it exercised control over their activity. Often, they said, Wal-Mart locked them inside at night and on weekends to prevent theft and keep federal agents from finding them.

Writing for a three-judge appeals court panel, Circuit Judge D. Brooks Smith upheld rulings in Wal-Mart’s favor by U.S. District Judge Garrett Brown in Newark, N.J.

The judge said the proposed class of plaintiffs should not be certified, noting they worked in 180 different stores in 33 U.S. states, for 70 different contractors and subcontractors, and for varying hours and wages.

He also found that, while the plaintiffs plausibly alleged a conspiracy to commit money laundering, this did not support a broader allegation that Wal-Mart conspired to harbor illegal immigrants or encourage illegal immigration, in violation of a federal anti-racketeering law.

Finally, the 3rd Circuit rejected the false imprisonment claim, saying Wal-Mart offered evidence that its stores had unobstructed emergency exits.

According to the opinion, Wal-Mart has resolved claims of some individual plaintiffs under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act through a series of settlements.

Randy Hargrove, a Wal-Mart spokesman, in a statement said the retailer is pleased with the decision. “Wal-Mart works to comply with all laws and expects our service providers to do the same,” he said.

In June 2011, Wal-Mart was also the winning party in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that made it harder to pursue class-action lawsuits, and which decertified a class of more than 1 million current and former female workers alleging gender bias.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

The University of Texas’ Weak Affirmative-Action Defense

Friday, August 10th, 2012

On Monday, as Peter Schmidt noted in the Chronicle, the University of Texas at Austin filed its brief with the U.S. Supreme Court defending the use of racial preferences in admissions. Like the brief of the petitioner, Abigail Fisher, the UT Austin argument is pitched directly at the likely swing vote on the Supreme Court, Justice Anthony Kennedy. I doubt it will be persuasive.

UT Austin faces an uphill battle because the Supreme Court has long held that race can be used to promote diversity in higher education only if it is “necessary”; Kennedy has emphasized that race should be used as a “last resort,” where race-neutral means won’t suffice. For years, supporters of affirmative action argued that no workable alternatives existed for creating racial diversity. In the words of Justice Harry Blackmun’s opinion in the 1978 Bakke case: “I suspect that it would be impossible to arrange an affirmative action program in a racially neutral way and have it successful. To ask that this be so is to demand the impossible. In order to get beyond racism, we must first take account of race. There is no other way.”

But UT Austin did find another way. As the UT brief acknowledges, in the fall of 1996, using race in admissions, UT Austin’s freshman class was 4.1 percent African American and 14.5 percent Hispanic. When UT Austin was temporarily barred from using race by a lower court, it adopted a socioeconomic affirmative-action plan and a program to admit students in the top 10 percent of every high-school class which resulted, in 2004, in a freshman class that was 4.5 percent African American and 16.9 percent Hispanic—marginally more diverse than under the race-based plan.

Faced with these facts, the UT Austin brief makes two central arguments to suggest that its race-neutral plans were nevertheless inadequate, justifying the reinsertion of race after 2004. First, UT suggests that diversity at the school-wide level is insufficient; what’s truly important is diversity at the classroom level. Even with the 2004 levels of diversity, there were thousands of classroom in which black and Latino students “were nearly non-existent,” the brief argues.

Second, UT suggests, the class-based affirmative-action and top-10-percent plans didn’t produce sufficient levels of socioeconomic diversity within the student body’s black and Latino communities. Those admitted through the 10-percent plan were more likely “to be the first in their families to attend college,” for example, than those admitted through a racial preference. Having wealthier black and Latino students in the mix, Texas argues, is critical to the process of “breaking down racial stereotypes” that other students might have.

Will these arguments fly with the Supreme Court? Shifting the traditional focus from schoolwide diversity to classroom diversity seems unlikely to convince a majority of the justices, as there are mathematical challenges to ever ensuring a critical mass of students in all classrooms. {snip}

And the argument for using race to admit more advantaged students of color highlights the very weakest moral argument for affirmative action. President Obama himself recognized this when he suggested that his own daughters, as fairly privileged students, do not deserve an affirmative-action preference.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

For now, Md. police can take DNA from charged criminals, Supreme Court says

Tuesday, July 31st, 2012

Police in Maryland can resume collecting DNA from suspects charged — but not yet convicted — in violent crimes, and the U.S. Supreme Court might be inclined to let them do so permanently.

U.S. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued an opinion Monday saying there is a “fair prospect” the court will overturn the Maryland Court of Appeals controversial Alonzo Jay King Jr. v State of Maryland decision, which prohibited DNA collection from suspects charged — but not yet convicted — in violent crimes and burglaries. And until the nation’s highest court can more thoroughly consider the issue, Roberts put the King decision on hold — meaning police in Maryland can resume collecting DNA.

“This stay will allow Maryland the uninterrupted use of this critical modern law enforcement tool that helps police and prosecutors solve some of Maryland’s most serious violent crimes,” Maryland Attorney General Douglas F. Gansler said in a statement.

The Supreme Court’s opinion is the latest development in an ongoing debate over whether — and when — it is legal to collect DNA from criminal suspects. Federal and state courts across the country have issued mixed opinions. The governor’s office says 26 states have legislation similar to Maryland’s.

It is precisely because of that debate that the Supreme Court intervened. In his opinion, Roberts wrote that the Maryland Court of Appeals decision conflicts with decisions by two other federal appellate courts, as well as a decision by Virginia’s Supreme Court. Roberts wrote that “given the considered analysis of the courts on the other side of the split, there is a fair prospect that this Court will reverse” the King decision.

Stephen Mercer, the chief attorney for the Maryland Office of the Public Defender’s Forensics Division, said the opinion is merely a “preliminary round” in an ongoing legal fight.

“We continue to believe the court, in the end, will vindicate the Fourth Amendment rights of Mr. King and all Marylanders in their right to genetic privacy,” Mercer said.

The case centers on a Maryland law, which, starting in 2009, allowed police to collect DNA from suspects after they were charged with violent crimes or burglaries. Before then, police had been able to collect DNA only from convicted criminals.

Alonzo Jay King Jr. challenged the law after he was arrested in April 2009 on assault charges. Prosecutors used a DNA swab from that case to connect him to a 2003 rape. He was eventually convicted and sentenced to life in prison for the rape.

The Maryland Court of Appeals sent King’s case back to the circuit court and threw out the DNA evidence, saying investigators violated his Fourth Amendment rights in taking his genetic material and comparing it with old crime scene samples. The ruling was condemned by prosecutors and police chiefs, who said it would hamper detectives’ ability to solve cold cases and jeopardize the convictions of 34 robbers, burglars and rapists whose genetic samples were taken after they were charged in separate cases.

On the advice of the attorney general’s office, police suspended DNA collection in the wake of the ruling. Now, it seems, they will be able to start collecting again. In his opinion, Roberts wrote that the Maryland Court of Appeals ruling creates “an ongoing and concrete harm to Maryland’s law enforcement and public safety interests” — even if it is only in effect for a matter of months.

Without a stay, “Maryland would be disabled from employing a valuable law enforcement tool for several months — a tool used widely throughout the country and one that has been upheld by two Courts of Appeals and another state high court,” Roberts wrote.

The Supreme Court had already temporarily stayed the decision while it waited for input from the Maryland Public Defender’s Office. In its filing opposing the stay, the public defender’s office argued that the King ruling was not causing any immediate harm, noting that Maryland’s attorney general had waited nearly eight weeks to ask for a stay.

 

Maryland authorities must file a petition for certiorari to have the Supreme Court consider whether to overturn the King ruling. In his statement, Gansler said he intends to do that next month.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Nevada bill draft request aimed at people in the country illegally

Tuesday, July 3rd, 2012

The 2013 Legislature will consider a proposal to adopt legal ways to reduce the illegal immigration population in Nevada and another to let election workers request photo identification before voters can cast ballots.

Assemblyman Ira Hansen, R-Sparks, who submitted the bill draft requests that were released Monday, doubts he can pass his bill dealing with illegal immigration because of Democratic opposition. He introduced a version of the bill in 2011, but it was rejected.

After the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week rejecting part of Arizona’s immigration law, Hansen said he asked the legislative attorney to draft a bill that included parts that were found constitutional.

That is the clause that allows police to request identification of people they suspect are in the country illegally after they have stopped their vehicles for another violation.

“If they cannot produce valid identification, why are they driving?” Hansen asked. “I want laws encouraging as many options to keep illegal aliens out of Nevada as possible. The real reason we need these laws is the federal government is not doing its job.”

But he acknowledge that if the state passes such a law, then it would remain U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement’s responsibility to pick up any illegal aliens whom Nevada police detain. They could decide just to let them go, he added.

He said Nevada has a lot of unauthorized residents, and they are driving down the pay of legal workers because they will work for less pay. He said employers should be disciplined for hiring people in the country illegally.

“I am doing this to honor a campaign promise,” Hansen said. “If it were on the ballot, it would win overwhelmingly and over half the Hispanics would vote for it.”

Hansen also does not predict success for his photo ID requirement for voters. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld an Arizona photo ID law in April, and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld an Indiana voter ID law in 2008.

While some people may contend the photo requirement is racist and an attempt to block minority voting, Hansen said his goal is to prevent fraudulent voting by anyone.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

Arizona Redistributes Video Training Cops How to Spot an ‘Illegal’

Thursday, June 14th, 2012

Ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on Arizona‘s controversial immigration law SB 1070, Governor Jan Brewer ordered the redistribution of a training video to all law enforcement agencies on how to look out for undocumented immigrants.

The move came Tuesday ahead of an expected ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court this month on the law, which was signed by Brewer in 2010.

Brewer said in a statement Tuesday that she wants to make sure officers are prepared if the court upholds the law.

Parts of the law blocked from taking effect include a provision requiring police to question people’s immigration status while enforcing other laws if there’s a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally.

The Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board’s video outlines factors that constitute reasonable suspicion that someone is in the country illegally, including language, demeanor and foreign-vehicle registration.

It also includes types of identification that should immediately end an officer’s suspicions about immigration status.

The case was argued before the high court in April, and a ruling is expected by the end of June. Based partly on skeptical questions posed by justices during the hearing, legal experts expect that the court likely will uphold Arizona’s requirement that police check the immigration status of people they stop for other reasons; that provision was put on hold by a judge in July 2010 and hasn’t yet been enforced. Less controversial parts of the law were allowed to take effect.

A decision in favor of Arizona could clear the way for other states to enforce immigration-check requirements and create an opening for states to take a larger role in immigration enforcement after mostly staying out of it for decades and letting the federal government handle it alone.

Five others states — Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, South Carolina and Utah — have enacted similar laws.

Read more: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/politics/2012/06/13/ariz-gov-orders-training-ahead-court-decision/#ixzz1xljxoDsE

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share

May Day Protests Show Weak Immigration Movement

Thursday, May 3rd, 2012

Over the last several years, May Day rallies in the United States have been dominated by activists pushing for a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million people in the country illegally. But since 2006, when hundreds of thousands took to the streets in cities across America, the rallies have gotten smaller, less focused and increasingly splintered by any number of groups with a cause.

In New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Oakland, Calif., May Day protests were dominated by Occupy Wall Street activists, a sign of how far the immigration reform movement has fallen off the radar, unable to compete with the weak economy.

Immigration activists say they are not worried about decreasing numbers at rallies because their focus the last few years has been more on getting eligible immigrants to become U.S. citizens and vote.

And yet activists acknowledge the threat to illegal immigrants may be stronger than ever with the U.S. Supreme Court considering Arizona’s tough, controversial crackdown.

As years have turned to decades, immigration activists have had to accept the reality that it could be a long time before Congress deals with the issue.

Meanwhile, for illegal immigrants, daily life has gotten harder. Deportations under Obama have gone up sharply. The annual average since 2009 is around 400,000, about 30 percent higher than under President George W. Bush, according to the Pew Hispanic Center.

There are also strong indications that fewer immigrants are trying to come to America, and others have gone home.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share on Facebook
Share