Judge’s Questions Target S.C. Law’s Worst Provisions

Judge Richard Gergel

After hearing oral arguments in a Charleston courthouse yesterday, U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel indicated that he is unlikely to strike down South Carolina’s anti-immigrant law in its entirety, but the questions he posed suggest that the laws most heinous provisions could get nixed. Those include requirements that immigrants carry their papers on them at all times and another that cops must check their immigration status.

According to The State:

“We’ve got 20 sections [in this law] and we’re down to talking about just a few of them,” Gergel said.“The state doesn’t like calling it a traffic dragnet, but I fear that is what it is.”
And then:
Arthur Goldberg, an assistant attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, said the federal government has sole authority in creating and implementing immigration policy. If each state is allowed to set its own immigration laws, they would complicate foreign relations, he said.
“This prevents the United States from speaking in one voice,” he said. “The states are valued partners with respect to immigration but they are not equal partners.”
As part of the government’s case, Assistant Secretary of State William Burns filed a brief, saying individual state laws were interfering with foreign policy. That brief weighed heavily on Gergel’s questions.
“What Mr. Burns is saying is, ‘I’m talking about drug trafficking and the Mexican government is talking about South Carolina.’”
Later, Gergel said, “The whole country is going to be held responsible for the acts of any one state and that’s where there must be federal authority on immigration policy.”
Gergel also expressed concern about a piece of the law that would criminalize anyone in the country illegally. Under the state law, police would be allowed to jail people for no reason other than they are illegal immigrants. Currently, the federal government treats those cases as civil violations.
“We’re going to pull them over on the way to the Piggly Wiggly and put them in jail?” Gergel asked. “Come on. This is in direct conflict with federal law.”
Get the rest of the story here.

Feds Consider Challenge To S.C.’s New Immigration Law

From The Greenville News:

By David Dykes|Staff Writer

10:04 PM, Oct. 26, 2011

President Barack Obama’s administration is reviewing South Carolina’s immigration law, but it was unclear Wednesday if federal officials will mount a legal challenge similar to those undertaken in other states.

U.S. Justice Department attorneys met Wednesday with Attorney General Alan Wilson in Columbia. Wilson told GreenvilleOnline.com it appears they are considering an effort to block South Carolina’s immigration measure.

“That was understood without it being said,” Wilson said. “They wouldn’t have come down here if they weren’t thinking about it. They indicated they had concerns with it (state law) and because of those concerns, we believe that they will probably act accordingly.

“They asked for the meeting, and we were obliging,” Wilson said.

Bill Nettles, U.S. attorney for the District of South Carolina, said in a statement the meeting was part of the Justice Department’s “ongoing review of immigration-related laws that were passed in several states.” (more…)

S.C. Anti-Immigrant Law Faces Legal Challenge

From The Huffington Post:

By

elise@huffingtonpost.com

WASHINGTON — A coalition of immigrant rights groups filed a suit on Wednesday to block South Carolina’s crackdown on unauthorized immigration, saying the law is unconstitutional and would encourage racial profiling.

The lawsuit may be a harbinger of things to come for the South Carolina law, which is similar in many ways to laws in Arizona, Georgia and Alabama. The law, which is set to go into effect on Jan. 1, requires police officers to ask about immigration status during routine stops if they have “reasonable suspicion” the person in question could be undocumented.

In Alabama and Arizona, similar laws led to challenges from the Department of Justice. Most provisions of the Arizona law, S.B. 1070, were blocked on Jun. 28, 2010, one day before the law was set to go into effect. Attempts to block most of the H.B. 46 immigration enforcement law in Alabama before its implementation date were unsuccessful, but DOJ lawyers appealed to federal courts last week to prevent its enforcement.

Those two laws also faced a barrage of lawsuits from immigrant rights groups, including the coalition that is now suing South Carolina over its law.

The South Carolina law, S.B. 20, has not been challenged by the Department of Justice, although the agency is reviewing it to determine whether it would interfere with federal law enforcement efforts.

Meanwhile, rights groups are pushing for the law to be blocked before it can be implemented. The American Civil Liberties Union joined with the Southern Poverty Law Center, the National Immigration Law Center and other immigrant rights groups on the lawsuit. (more…)

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.