The U.S. Department of Justice announced last week that it had filed a constitutional challenge to Arizona’s new immigration law, S.B. 1070 (discussed earlier on this blog here and here), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against its enforcement. The suit was filed on behalf of the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of State, which each have responsibilities related to immigration enforcement.
As summarized in the press release, the complaint alleges that the Arizona law “unconstitutionally interferes with the federal government’s authority to set and enforce immigration policy” and “will place significant burdens on federal agencies, diverting their resources away from high-priority targets, such as aliens implicated in terrorism, drug smuggling, and gang activity, and those with criminal records”. Additionally, the government cited the potential for harassment of lawful immigrants and visitors, and pointed to the law enforcement community’s argument that the Arizona law undermines its efforts to gain the trust and cooperation of immigrant communities.
The Department of Justice also filed a motion for preliminary injunctive relief, seeking to suspend enforcement of the law while the suit is resolved.
As mentioned earlier on this blog, U.S.-based NGOs have also filed a constitutional challenge to the Arizona law and United Nations experts have expressed concerns about its compatibility with international human rights standards (here and here). Last week, Human Rights Watch published its report Tough, Fair and Practical that urges federal immigration reform and recommends specific changes to ensure that “immigrant crime victims a chance to seek justice, protect workers, respect the private and family life of longtime residents, and provide fair treatment for immigrants who come before the courts”. [HRW]
Attorney General Eric Holder also stated that, should the law survive the constitutional challenge and come into effect, the Federal government may again take legal action if it believes racial profiling is taking place. [LA Times]